So, we're playing Dogs and my character, Br. Samson, is being fawned over by a hot young Mountain Person woman. I initiated a conflict with the Stakes that I would resist her temptations (I have "I can resist any woman's temptations 1d4").

I roll well, with three sixes as well as a bunch of other dice. My GM pushes forward a snake-eyes raise. . . and I say "I give."

That is all.

Uhm, given that "say yes or roll dice" applies to players as much as the GM... why?

What was the fictional narration on the raise?  Was that why you gave?

Or was it just to demonstrate that you could win, but you chose not to?

yrs--
--Ben

I initiated the conflict, so there was nothing for me to "say yes" to until I initiated the conflict. The whole thing was basically me asking the GM to have the hot young Mountain Person woman try to tempt my Dog into sin, and then my Dog failing to resist. It definitely wasn't about trying to demonstrate that I could win, just demonstrating that my Dog wasn't going to do it just to do it, but would fail to resist doing it. If that makes sense. (or really, even if it doesn't)

Hm... initiating a conflict, where you're on the defensive.

Interesting tactic.

Would it have played out any different, if the Mountain woman had been a PC?

This was a screamingly funny moment at the table, if not in the recap. (Coincidentally, we were running Ben's town, New Bethesda, or at least my hasty misreading of it. The agent of Brother Samson's temptation was Sister Semma.) The sequence of events was:

Me: [Narrates Sister Semma making eyes at Brother Samson.]

Bill: I want a conflict to resist Sister Semma's temptations

We: [Roll dice.]

Me: Sister Semma says something like, "I think you could be a great influence around the camp." (Unspoken: "*Big Boy*.")

Me: [Pushes forward snake-eyes.]

Bill: I give.

We: [Wipe tears from eyes. Right chairs.]

Nate: There are very few people in the world who would get why this is funny, but man -

If you were going to have your Dog fail, and her goal was for you to fail, that doesn't sound like a conflict.  Just narrate the cigarettes.

We had a lot more fun doing it this way. I'm sure it's a bit meta for some tastes, though.

Best,

Jim

I've actually seen something like this in the Dogs game I ran with my brothers. It wasn't quite so precipitous in their case, but it was similar enough.

The reasoning behind it (in my brothers case) seemed to be that he wasn't comfortable a) simply saying what an NPC did and b) assuming the results of the NPCs action a priori. Asking for the contest is a way to work the GM into doing a for you (preserving the control of NPCs as GM domain) and then folding quickly into the contest is a way to avoid b.

So where saying "She tries to seduce me and does" may be difficult, may not give the sense of flow or struggle that you want, or may step on group-dynamic toes, saying "I'd like for her to try to seduce me, oops I fail" gets a similar result. For some groups this won't matter at all, for others it might.

(Plus, it was funny.)

The one thing my brother did differently was to wait for me to make a big enough raise for him to take fallout, and then give on the next one. That way he got seduced in two moves, and got a new trait from the deal.

In our next session, Brother Solomon was presented with a young, beautiful Mountain Person woman (Semma) who desperately wanted to marry him. His fellow Dog, Brother Roderick, put some peer pressure on him, but also went and discussed the issue with a missionary instead of discussing it with Semma.

Eventually, Brother Solomon was put into a position where he could either leave her behind or continue as a Dog and "come back for her later."

I decided to push it to a conflict (I actually had to have a conflict to bolster her self-esteem enough for her to even join the conflict first) and was then in a situation with three possible outcomes:
1) I could lose the conflict and retire Brother Solomon;
2) I could win the conflict without escalating or using any traits that would take advantage of the poor girl; or
3) I could win the conflict and have Brother Solomon turn out to be a cad.

As it turned out, I decided not to go route #3. I ended up being 1 short of succeeding at #2 (I pushed forward a raise which the GM matched with one die left over, showing a 1). When the GM pushed forward his raise of 1, I was at a loss to come up with another trait, belonging, or escalation that wouldn't turn Brother Solomon into a cad. (I had already used all of the d6s and d10s in free relationship dice, so I couldn't increase my relationship with either Semma or the Dogs).

So I retired Brother Solomon. He stayed behind to marry Semma and to work as a missionary among the Mountain People.

It was awesome.

I think that this is probably more important than the first reported Dog fatality.

The last several Dogs reports I've read, including this one, have really shone for me. Thank you!

-Vincent

The only dog who ever retired in a Dogs game I ran, went before the Council of Elders, burned her coat in protest, spit on the floor and told the other Dogs in her posse that if she ever saw them she'd shoot them.

Nice to see a dog just retire and marry happily.  I always stress during the Accomplishment scene that there is no shame in folding up the coat, putting down the gun and retiring.

dunlaing wrote:
It was awesome.

Me: Sister Semma says, gently, "Of course I'll wait. Among the Faithful I'm a fallen woman now and among the Mountain People I'm marked for having lain with a white man. No one else will have me."

Bill: That's the kind of thing you have to roll dice for.

Me: Why?

Bill: Because she's trying to guilt me into staying.

Me: No she's not. She's explaining why she'll do as you ask. She doesn't feel secure enough of her position to try to get you to stay.

Bill: Oh. Cause I'd kind of like a conflict where she tries to get me to stay.

Me: Ah. I see. But in your e-mail you were talking about postponing a final reckoning with Sister Semma for a couple of towns yet.

Bill: Yeah, but that was a whole other me.

Me: All right. (Thinks.)

Me: How about first a conflict where Brother Samson tries to instill in her enough gumption to fight to keep him? It would mean he's got this weird conflicted sense of what he's done and should do.

Bill: That works.

Bill: My Momma had this look, a kind of sad-sack put-upon expression that I hated, whenever you weren't doing what she wanted. I make my face look just like that.

Me: (Seeing the two with snake-eyes.) "Oh don't make that face at me," Semma says.

Me: (Pushing forward my lame last One to Raise.) "My mother always made that face."

I had Brother Hiram and Semma trying to get Brother Samson (Bill's character) to Make Good, and Brother Roderick (Nate's Dog) put some "peer" pressure on him . . .

"I had Brother Hiram and Semma trying to get Brother Samson (Bill's character) to Make Good. Brother Roderick (Nate's Dog) put some "peer" pressure on him . . . "

Supplanter wrote:
Because at one point in the middle of the second conflict he had a perfect opportunity to reverse the blow, but didn't because, well, in the fiction it would have meant meanness or cheapness or some other less than admirable quality.

Supplanter wrote:
And that the supposed slam-dunk insight, "The character doesn't exist" is, on some levels, wildly, wildly wrong. If the characters didn't exist, I couldn't see any reason to do this stuff.

Paka wrote:

Supplanter wrote:
Because at one point in the middle of the second conflict he had a perfect opportunity to reverse the blow, but didn't because, well, in the fiction it would have meant meanness or cheapness or some other less than admirable quality.

I don't understand. what that means.

Supplanter wrote:
And that the supposed slam-dunk insight, "The character doesn't exist" is, on some levels, wildly, wildly wrong. If the characters didn't exist, I couldn't see any reason to do this stuff.

Supplanter wrote:
Yeah. Bill was amazing on this. Because at one point in the middle of the second conflict he had a perfect opportunity to reverse the blow, but didn't because, well, in the fiction it would have meant meanness or cheapness or some other less than admirable quality.

You can read about my own experience here.

Ben Lehman put it to me on the phone the other night that sometimes in Dogs you win a conflict by making the winning raise, not by having the winning dice. The fiction can trump. I think the Dogs-playing community's growing awareness of this as a feature of the game is part of what's making recent play reports so hot.

("The character doesn't exist" is a catch phrase for a certain technique, like "say yes or roll dice" is. It's not a universal declaration of truth.)

-Vincent

Indeed, as play goes on, the GM is increasingly forced to win with his raises, 'cause he sure ain't gonna win with his dice.

yrs--
--Ben

lumpley wrote:
You can read about my own experience here.

lumpley wrote: Ben Lehman put it to me on the phone the other night that sometimes in Dogs you win a conflict by making the winning raise, not by having the winning dice. The fiction can trump.

lumpley wrote: ("The character doesn't exist" is a catch phrase for a certain technique, like "say yes or roll dice" is. It's not a universal declaration of truth.)

Supplanter wrote:

Paka wrote:

Supplanter wrote:
Because at one point in the middle of the second conflict he had a perfect opportunity to reverse the blow, but didn't because, well, in the fiction it would have meant meanness or cheapness or some other less than admirable quality.

I don't understand. what that means.

My fault for not being able to say more about the fictive detail there. Maybe Bill can be more illustrative, but the nature of the raise was such that "turning the tables" (which is what Reversing the Blow does) on Semma at that  moment would have constituted cruelty on Brother Samson's part as Bill judged the situation.

lumpley wrote:
I think that this is probably more important than the first reported Dog fatality.

The last several Dogs reports I've read, including this one, have really shone for me. Thank you!

-Vincent

I can't wait to run this game.
That is all.

:D

lumpley wrote:
Ben Lehman put it to me on the phone the other night that sometimes in Dogs you win a conflict by making the winning raise, not by having the winning dice. The fiction can trump. I think the Dogs-playing community's growing awareness of this as a feature of the game is part of what's making recent play reports so hot.

I should add: this is a wonderfully inspiring play report. Way to go, guys!