Five towns and eleven sessions in and I think I've got a great GMing rhythm going.  But Pride goeth before Injustice, as they say, and I ran headlong into an interesting wall on Tuesday night.  It wasn't a train wreck, and there weren't any casualties--not even the other players' trust for me--so it's a curiosity and a lesson learned, but it was agonizing while it was going on.  My inattentiveness caused the problem, so I hope I can look out for it in the future.

Restoration Wash Branch was designed to be highly supernatural  The core of the hierarchy was based around an agonizing love story, with all sorts of creep-out material emanating from the Demonic Attacks.  In one of the Attacks, a long dead lover returns to wed one of the principals of the town.  I didn't think it was my place to specify how she had returned, metaphysically speaking, or the specifics of her new demeanour aside from how they related to town creation (she was back, she was living and breathing, and no good could come of it.)

The problem came up when the players intimated that they would have their Dogs make a judgment based on those specifics.  This was agonizing for me!  How I worded the Stakes of a proposed conflict would influence the disposition of the Dogs' judgments.

Specifically, the Dogs proposed a sort of Demonic litmus test.  If they were able to exorcise the erstwhile-decedent, they would judge the situation as being far more grave than if they couldn't:  in other words, if they failed to exorcise her, then it was the King's will that she remain on this good Earth, and other judgments would be more lenient.  All this was decided by the players beforehand.  They wanted to know if she could be exorcised, not if they successfully exorcised her.  And here I was with no idea where she could be exorcised.

Am I making my quandary understandable?  They wanted to ferret out the big juicy secret I was obviously keeping.  All I knew, though, was that my decision on a matter of non-existent metaphysical interpretation would impact their Dogs' judgments!  At the same time, I felt I couldn't say anything, because they were obviously really invested in the outcome. 

I was kind of saved by that player investment.  One player then decided her Dog was going to do everything in her power to stop the attempted exorcism, and so before I had to articulate the necessarily-biased Stakes, there was a conflict based around whether she stopped the attempt.  When she failed, the general consensus was that, thematically speaking, it was appropriate for the exorcism to succeed; the dead lover kissed her would-be defender on the brow, stepped out into the rain, and disappeared into the gloom.  A decision that was most appropriately for the group's consideration, and not mine, ended up being effectively made by the group.

Nothing was hurt, nothing fell apart.  In a way I made a mountain out of a molehill (the situation was compounded by a week of worrying between sessions about what would happen when play resumed.)  I think the most useful thing I can get from this is that Dogs play has taught me to be disturbed about the possibility of telling players how to have their characters act.  I suppose that's a pretty darn functional fear to have instilled in you.

That, and my players really trust me.  Cool.  Darn cool.

- kit

Yes, very, very cool.

Isn't it your duty, though, to state What's Wrong?  If you don't state that the nature of the resurrection is part of What's Wrong, then it's not.

As Fred says, you should have been explicit in what happened. That's your power as the GM, to decide what happened, and reveal that in play.

On the flip side, I kind of like the inherent fuzziness of this.. the judgement retroactively deciding what happened, to an extent. It's shaky ground, and you're gonna have to be ready to take a stance on this if the players require it of you. One thing you could possibly have done though is to put the decision back into their hands..

As a player, you could have called the stakes of their impending resurrection attempt weak. As GM you have no power to pass judgement, but as a player, you do. You can say that the stakes are hedging bets, in a similar manner to "I want to stop him without killing him!" Suggest that they either try to exorcise or, or not, and base their judgements on what happens, not what *could* happen. This tactic is a good one, but again you'll have to be ready to just say yes or roll the dice if the player collective decides to keep their stakes.

Hmm, Fred, I'm not sure I get your point.  I agree that the "something's wrong" progression is totally my province as a GM.  And that the metaphysics of resurrection weren't addressed in that progression. 

However, what the players decide to address in play definitely isn't my province.  They decided the outcome of this attempt was a big deal to them, and therefore, it became important to me.  How does whether it's part of What's Wrong factor in, if the players are there clamouring for an answer?

Lance, yeah, if I did it again I probably would have put it back in the players' hands as you suggest and insisted on applying the "last person  in the conflict gets to say what happens with what's at stake" rule.  At the time I was honestly worried they would've felt a bit cheated by that approach, though.

-kit

I would say "Damn.  Folks, I left that totally up in the air; I have no idea if she can be exorcised or not."

Or, you play the town and get inside the dead girl's head.  Does she want to be exorcised, or does she want to stay?  Will she just recognize the Dog's authority?  If she wants to be exorcized, there's your "say yes".  Otherwise roll the dice.  Using her as an NPC if she wants to stay, or against 4d6+demonic influence if there's no clear 'other side' to the conflict.

What does the dead girl want the dogs to do? 

James

To me it seems like perfect stakes.

If the players said to me "Can we exorcise her?"

My response would be "Do you want to try, because the stakes of 'Do you Exorcise her" seem solid." 

What I would make sure is clear are the facts surrounding her appearance in the town.  Maybe they'll initiate a different conflict along the lines of determining if she's a demon, which would also be cool (and again you can say yes or roll the dice to that).

The decision to even try to exorcise her says something as much as the act of exorcising her.  If the dogs succeed in exorcising her, the raises and sees of the conflict will tell something important in the story.  Even if the dogs fail to exorcise her, the dogs could still easily draw two conclusions: it's the will of the King that she be here, or she's a very powerful demon and we may need to do more, again based on raises and sees.  The GM hasn't curtailed the the player's behavior, character action, or judgement.

Also I remind players, in situations like this, that winning the stakes doesn't establish the result of the stakes only that the winner has "control of the stakes".  Which even if the dogs do everything right to exorcise her and win the conflict they can now say whether or not she even can be exorcised; if she can't they now have a hysterical innocent woman on their hands.

I've had a few occassions where players ask me if they "can do" something, I've had a lot of luck with responding with "I don't know want to try?"