Hullo all!

I posted a while back asking for advice on my first session, and didn't really follow up on it.  Since then, though, I've run two towns (Boxelder Canyon and Tower Creek from the book), and have a random handful of observations and questions to hear people's thoughts on.

* Neither town was resolved in a single session of play as recommended.  Uncovering all the tangles of the hierarchy of sin and playing through conflicts just took too long!  From what I could tell, this was because my players were very careful and cerebral about their Raises and Sees: I'd Raise against them, and they'd sit and ponder for a while about how best to respond and bring Traits in.  One player's taking tricky Traits like "literally unremarkable" and "I can feel places threatening me" had something to do with it, too, I think.  It did start to smooth out over time, as we realized we didn't need, e.g. elaborate counterarguments to Block or Take a Blow in a talking conflict, for instance: you can just say "I shake my head scornfully" or "She blanches, taken aback at your words."

* Since having all one's dice on the table gives a sort of tactical clarity, it became tempting for players to do what I called "the power-up sequence" in the first round of a conflict, mentioning every possible Trait.  Since players started vetoing the repetitive bits, it wasn't a real problem, but it does amusingly suggest to me that Super Sailor Sentai Watchdog Evolution or something might be thematically supported by the system.

* Traits and Belongings we understand.  Relationships we understand, though I had to disappoint the players a number of times by saying that Relationships only apply when the person's at stake or in the conflict with you--you can't just draw upon them by mention the same way you do Traits.  Attributes, though, caused a lot of confusion.  For instance:
** Can you "de-escalate" and get more dice?  If you're fighting, that's Body+Will; suppose you Block with some sort of hold, or shoving the person away from you, then on your Raise you start trying to shout them down.  Talking conflict's Acuity+Heart.  Do you get that load of dice, or has the conflict gone irrevocably up the ladder by this point?
** The "axe to the head in the night" trick (which I actually used; it got the same reaction from the players as described in the book, great fun ^_^) suggests you roll just Acuity when you're asleep.  Where else does such a thing apply?  Say what's at stake is "do you catch Sister Wilhelmina before she vanishes into the badlands," and it's a big horse race, and Wilhelmina's out of gun/word/fist range.  What kind of conflict is that?  What do you roll?
** If you're refusing to escalate, as Dogs sometimes can with their superior dice, how do you Block/Dodge?  Say you're talking, Acuity+Heart, while your opponent's shooting at you, Acuity+Will.  When you duck the bullets, do you roll in Body or Will, or anything at all (besides relevant Traits)?

* People were spot on about players wanting to take Fallout, though it varied.  One player, the one who liked to ponder, doggedly (heh) avoided it.  Another tended not to take it deliberately, but delighted in what it said about his character's strengths and weaknesses when he did.  The third player voluntarily Took blows he really didn't have to, even going so far as to deliberately put forward weak dice on Raises so his opponent could Reverse against him!  He said it made things more interesting, and it really highlighted why Dogs is a narrativist game--the mechanics put that power in his hands.

* One thing I found tricky: the game's supposed to be about moral shades of grey and whatnot, but it's tough to work within the Hierarchy of Sin without making a villain, a final boss character.  In Boxelder Canyon, the man burned in the fire was causing most of the trouble; in Tower Creek, the sorceress with the false-marriage cult.  Is that okay?

* Speaking of which, we had one notable Dog-vs-Dog conflict at the end of Boxelder Canyon, when one Dog wanted to shoot the unrepentant bigot in the street, and the other wanted to send him off as a missionary to the Mountain People.  Shooting won.  It was the Dog's uncle.  The other Dog rewrote his coat's description to include the blood spatters.  ^_^  ^_^  ^_^

As the players realize the system doesn't allow negation of their narration of raises and sees, they should be more comfortable with not agonizing over what to say. In the game I played in, we occaisionally blocked or dodged without saying anythink (not really kosher, but then also, no one was raising eyebrows, or at least not that I saw). Note also that players (and the GM) can help each other with their raises and sees.

One thing I found tricky: the game's supposed to be about moral shades of grey and whatnot, but it's tough to work within the Hierarchy of Sin without making a villain, a final boss character.  In Boxelder Canyon, the man burned in the fire was causing most of the trouble; in Tower Creek, the sorceress with the false-marriage cult.  Is that okay?

SabreCat wrote:
* Neither town was resolved in a single session of play as recommended.  Uncovering all the tangles of the hierarchy of sin and playing through conflicts just took too long!

From what I could tell, this was because my players were very careful and cerebral about their Raises and Sees: I'd Raise against them, and they'd sit and ponder for a while about how best to respond and bring Traits in.  One player's taking tricky Traits like "literally unremarkable" and "I can feel places threatening me" had something to do with it, too, I think.

It did start to smooth out over time, as we realized we didn't need, e.g. elaborate counterarguments to Block or Take a Blow in a talking conflict, for instance: you can just say "I shake my head scornfully" or "She blanches, taken aback at your words."

* Since having all one's dice on the table gives a sort of tactical clarity, it became tempting for players to do what I called "the power-up sequence" in the first round of a conflict, mentioning every possible Trait.

** Can you "de-escalate" and get more dice?  If you're fighting, that's Body+Will; suppose you Block with some sort of hold, or shoving the person away from you, then on your Raise you start trying to shout them down.  Talking conflict's Acuity+Heart.  Do you get that load of dice, or has the conflict gone irrevocably up the ladder by this point?

** The "axe to the head in the night" trick (which I actually used; it got the same reaction from the players as described in the book, great fun ^_^) suggests you roll just Acuity when you're asleep.  Where else does such a thing apply?

Say what's at stake is "do you catch Sister Wilhelmina before she vanishes into the badlands," and it's a big horse race, and Wilhelmina's out of gun/word/fist range.  What kind of conflict is that?  What do you roll?

** If you're refusing to escalate, as Dogs sometimes can with their superior dice, how do you Block/Dodge?  Say you're talking, Acuity+Heart, while your opponent's shooting at you, Acuity+Will.  When you duck the bullets, do you roll in Body or Will, or anything at all (besides relevant Traits)?

* People were spot on about players wanting to take Fallout, though it varied.  One player, the one who liked to ponder, doggedly (heh) avoided it.  Another tended not to take it deliberately, but delighted in what it said about his character's strengths and weaknesses when he did.  The third player voluntarily Took blows he really didn't have to, even going so far as to deliberately put forward weak dice on Raises so his opponent could Reverse against him!  He said it made things more interesting, and it really highlighted why Dogs is a narrativist game--the mechanics put that power in his hands.

* One thing I found tricky: the game's supposed to be about moral shades of grey and whatnot, but it's tough to work within the Hierarchy of Sin without making a villain, a final boss character.  In Boxelder Canyon, the man burned in the fire was causing most of the trouble; in Tower Creek, the sorceress with the false-marriage cult.  Is that okay?

* Speaking of which, we had one notable Dog-vs-Dog conflict at the end of Boxelder Canyon, when one Dog wanted to shoot the unrepentant bigot in the street, and the other wanted to send him off as a missionary to the Mountain People.  Shooting won.  It was the Dog's uncle.  The other Dog rewrote his coat's description to include the blood spatters.  ^_^  ^_^  ^_^

(Sorry for the supersloppy post. I clicked "Post" by accident.)

Re: Villains

I endorse having a bad guy! I wish more people played with real villains.

I ran a town a couple weeks ago where this guy came to town with a gun, thought he was the big man because he had a gun, used it to throw his weight around and get his way - but the villain of the town was the Steward, who didn't deal with this guy effectively. By the time the Dogs showed up the town was gone completely to hell, the Steward was a sorcerer with a third of the town his possessed followers, he'd hanged his own wife from the Tree of Life in front of the meetinghouse. The gun guy who started it was just holed up somewhere feeling bad for shooting - but not killing - that one kid.

So the Dogs hang the Steward, shoot a bunch of people, and even one of the Dogs dies possessed by a demon. Eventually they look up this gun guy and he's like, "yeah, man, if I'd known what was going to happen, I'd'a pitched my gun in the river."

What do they do with him? It's his fault the town's half-murdered and corrupt, but he didn't really do anything that bad. Do the Dogs hang him alongside the sorcerous Steward? Do they say, "well, now you know! Don't let me catch you with a gun again!"

You can have a serious villain, no redeeming qualities, and still have moral complexity underneath.

Re: Rolling just Acuity

There are no rules for when you play these kinds of games, except: get your players' buy-in. Feel free to play with the stats and when to roll which, as long as you keep everything above-board, as long as you're not doing it to get one over on somebody.

-Vincent

I endorse having a bad guy! I wish more people played with real villains.

For anybody who doesn't know, J's running Dogs for me and some folks just now. Thus his response and thus mine:

"More people" doesn't mean, y'know, anyone in particular, even us. I think people would have some more fun with the game in general if they treated having a real villain as a viable option, instead of being all like "if there's a real villain, judgement's too easy; better not." That's all.

Oh and I fixx0rd your /quote.

-Vincent

Thanks, V.

See, here's the thing about villainy: as long as that's not where the real judgements lie, that's great. Typically, in my towns, the real atrocities of the town are committed by good people overreacting to injustices wrought by those abusing power, whatever power that is. That is, the burden is on the power structure (sometimes it's the Steward, sometimes, like on the Western Star, it rests with someone else) to either let people be or act very, very carefully. You may have noticed the theme of authorities acting out of fear (of their own people or of their own higherer-ups) and greed, which is sort of my feeling about authority figures in general. They act poorly — either heavy-handedly or weakly — and the reaction is to act in self-interest (which we can assume people will usually do), which threatens the authority's position, so they either overreact or fold under the weight... and so on.

Now, maybe the Steward's a bully, or maybe the snake-oil salesman is greedy and holds his cure over the townsfolk, but the issues is that everyone's in it up to their elbows, behaving badly. Shooting the Steward or the salesman won't solve anything even though those guys suck and are the cause of the trouble; you've got to have enough characters around that the players decide who's worth what, cuz they can't shoot the whole town.

Right?

Joshua wrote:
cuz they can't shoot the whole town.

Right?

Ben wrote:
They can't?

lumpley wrote:
Re: Villains

I endorse having a bad guy! I wish more people played with real villains.

lumpley wrote:

You can have a serious villain, no redeeming qualities, and still have moral complexity underneath.