Joe has named our group the Portland Independent RPG players...

We got to our first town last night. I forgot to bring my notes to work with me, so I'll be working off memories and such, but that's good, because I want to focus on what the play was like, not the details of the SIS.

Players last night: Myself with Bartholomew, Jeremy with Nathaniel, and a new player, Matt with August.

First impression - damn, Dogs is an awesome game to play. I was unsure how I would enjoy this new mode of play, and all I can say is that I want more!

My biggest impression from the game - As I've mentioned before, I'm the quiet type, sit back and let others do the talking, until I care about something. This worried me, how would I react in play. Well, sure enough, when we were just talking and the dice weren't on the table, I would sit quietly. But when the dice hit the table, I came right out of my shell.

In two situations, I launched a conflict.

The first, we're in a saloon (in a non-faithful town adjacent to the faithful town - there's strife between the two towns). We were directed to a Pinkerton agent (who is the trouble shooter for the town) to find out where Thomas lived. The agent wouldn't tell us. So we asked the bartender. He wouldn't tell us either - he was affraid of the Pinkerton. So I launched a conflict to get the bartender to tell us, launching with a statement about how a man needn't keep secrets. I forget exactly what I said, but what was key was that I wasn't going to let it go (Jeremy's Nathaniel had already left the saloon).

In the second, we had brought Thomas back to the faithful town to marry Abby. After converting him, and before the wedding, he pulled out a cigarette and started to light up. Bartholomew stepped right in and grabbed the cigarette, saying "we don't smoke."

Now rewinding a bit...

First off, we're still struggling some with defining the initial accomplishment conflict. I forget how much time we spent getting Matt a character, but I know we stumbled a lot on that accomplishment conflict. It was also worth noting that this chargen was even less interractive than our initial chargen. We as players need to get out of our shell more and make chargen more interractive.

Joe set the first scene, after appologizing for railroading - note, it's not railroading to agressively set scenes and put the dogs on their way to the town. Joe didn't get hung up on that, but it's interesting to see that reticence. Our first conflict was "do we get to the town before they hang Cyrus". We quickly resolved that and made it to town just in time to interrupt Cyrus's hanging. Now here's where things faltered. I was fully expecting a conflict here, and I shouted "hold, what is this man accused of?"

We then got bogged down in talking and getting information (and me not saying very much). We definitely needed a conflict or two in there.

Now here's a big thing, where we faltered, and one that makes me really like Dogs. Joe didn't push us hard enough. Amazingly I wanted to be pushed harder. I think there was only ever one escalation. We never saw gunplay. I can see how a GM, affraid of stomping on the PCs could hold back, but the GM has to remember, he can't kill or injure the PCs. What he can do is force the player to decide if injury/death is worth it. That isn't to say the GM should push every conflict hard, but man, I wanted some hard conflicts. I wanted to be in the position of really working to figure out how to bring more dice to the table.

Someone in another thread mentioned too many dice, and I think I agree. One thing I've really noted, the Well Rounded background with 17 dice of stats seems too much. By talking or getting physical (but not fighting), I could start out with 10 dice on the table. This tended to overwhelm the GM.

I've got to run to a class, so more in another post.

Frank

I've got a few more minuites, so here's a couple more thoughts:

We really struggled with group conflicts. I think we only had one conflict with only one PC, and only one or two where a PC was missing. Some definite problems on stakes and such.

One thought - In the first conflict, Joe said only one PC had to win the conflict for the group to get to the town in time. I'm thinking that anyone who gave didn't make it in time. That would have made the dice gifts more meaningfull (I sacrce getting there in time so someone else does get there in time).

Frank

ffilz wrote: We really struggled with group conflicts. I think we only had one conflict with only one PC, and only one or two where a PC was missing. Some definite problems on stakes and such.

The main problem we had with squishy stakes was when there were multiple PCs involved in a conflict. The issue there is what happens when one PC gives and the others don't. In our first conflict, a clean way to have handled it would be to say that only those who ultimately win the conflict got to the town in time to stop the hanging rather than the way the conflict was stated where only one PC had to win (though I guess that is acceptable stakes - just weaker). Another way to have run that would have been for each PC to have his own conflict. That would also trim the weakness of the GM in a conflict with multiple PCs since the GM has to respond to each PC's raises (which is perfectly reasonable if the conflict is between actual people, in that case, two or more people can definitely gang up on a single opponent, but perhaps not so reasonable when the conflict is against nature or something). Of course that conflict also points out the difficulties of handling a conflict where there isn't a clear opposing character.

Frank

ffilz wrote:
Our first conflict was "do we get to the town before they hang Cyrus".

The alternative you mention, where only the winners get to interfere with the hanging, doesn't sound entertaining either, since the losing players get left out.