In the character generation portion of the rules, there's talk of accomplishments.  (pg 28-32)  This is a fine part of the game, but something seems off about it.  For conflicts involving a Dog's inner turmoil, such as "I hope I overcome my tendency to act like X," as opposed to "I hope such and such external event happens," it's advised that the player take the role of the Dog trying to remain the way they are and the GM takes the role of the forces trying to change them.  It's right there on page 29, under a big 2b.

I don't buy it.

As a player, suppose my stakes are the exemplar "I hope my character learned not to swear so much."  I'm going into a conflict with a goal for my character to stop swearing.  But according to the rules and the example, that only happens if the GM wins.  So I'm already in a lose-to-win situation:  I only get what I wanted if I do *badly* in this contest.

That's why we have stakes!  So the GM can't screw us over by saying "haw, haw, you made your roll too well, you blow up and die."

But it's worse:  in Dogs, I choose when I lose.  I can give at any time.  What stops me from giving right when the conflict starts and getting what I want?  It's cheesy, sure, but that's just evidence that there's a bad rule that needs to be punished.  (Of course, the GM can always say, "haw haw, I give.  you stay the way you are.")

But let's assume that you and I are mature enough to not give immediately and actually try to play out the conflict and get inside the sides.  Here's the thing:  since when you lose is voluntary, I will always be second guessing the involved judgement:  Could I really keep going?  Did I just give in early to get what I wanted?  Have I put up enough of a show of fighting for something I don't want?

To me, Dogs is about pushing the boundary of what you're willing to go through to get what you want.  It's not about pushing the boundary of what you're willing to go through to get what you don't want.

Willow,

It works just fine.  Just reverse roles.  Always have the Dog play the role the player wants to win.  I've done it quite a few times and it's always been a pertty heady conflict, though more often than not I'll try to find an external conflict to represent the internal change if possible.

Regards,
Daniel

Hi Willow,

If you desperately want something for your character you should take it as a trait or relationship. The accomplishment is for things that you think would be cool to explore - events that you think are interesting to form part of the backstory. You may have a preference for how you think things may ultimately come out, but you want to play the events out to some dramatic conclusion, otherwise you would just take the trait.

If you do have a preference, then you would want to align yourself with it, to allow your play to flow more organically; however, there is no reason that your preference will line up with the character's. That is why 2b appears, because there are many cases where I might think "It'd be cool if Bro Nate was put upon to give up cussing while in training, and maybe he even wants to - but I'll be damned if he will!"

If I were you I would use 2b as and when it feels organic. Don't force it if it makes you uncomfortable. But bear in mind that an accomplishment, like much of Dogs, is a process that is in itself meaningful, not an obstacle to get toward a result.

In accomplishments like that I always ask the player "So, do you, OOCly, want the character to make it or not?"

If they say they do, I play the opposition and they have to win to change. If they say they don't, then I play the change and they have to win to stay the same.

Not so tough, really.

Here are some examples of this sort of thing in play: http://spaceanddeath.com/geekgrrl/bitv/BitV_May_02_Session_1.txt and http://spaceanddeath.com/geekgrrl/bitv/BitV_May_09_Session_2.txt and from a different game http://games.spaceanddeath.com/yudhishthirasdice/25

As Alex and Brand says.

Don't forget that you will get a new trait, no matter if you get or not the accomplishment. This trait may give you the edge to win a conflict, but only if you include in the narration something related to the result. Thus, the accomplishment is perfect to add some quirk to the character that is founded on actual play, and you are interested on. For example, would my character manage to control this kind of emotion? If she does not manage to do it from the beginning (she does not get the accomplishment), how would this affect her life and job afterwards? Both alternatives may be interesting, but probably the second sounds like more fun.

Arturo

Every time I've done it, it's worked.

Dunno what else to say.

I had one recently where the player said "I hope my guy learns to respect women." I said "okay, you play the side of him that doesn't respect women, and I'll play the fellow student - a woman - trying to force him to change."

So that's what we did. And he rolled well and pushed hard enough and won. And he was like, "YES! She LOSES. I TOTALLY WI - wait a sec."

So Willow, have you tried it and it didn't work, or are you just talkin'?

-Vincent

Alex wrote:
"It'd be cool if Bro Nate was put upon to give up cussing while in training, and maybe he even wants to - but I'll be damned if he will!"

Willow wrote:

Alex wrote:
"It'd be cool if Bro Nate was put upon to give up cussing while in training, and maybe he even wants to - but I'll be damned if he will!"

Ok, I get that.  That seems like the only time that I'd ever use the 2b option- basically if the player explicitly made it clear that he wanted me to.

Vincent- I'm just thinking and talking, but your for your example, if I was the player in question, why wouldn't I just give right away?

Willow wrote:
Vincent- I'm just thinking and talking, but your for your example, if I was the player in question, why wouldn't I just give right away?

Oh hey, let me add:

"I hope I won a fair fight."
"Cool! This guy attacks you in the barn -"
"I give."
"You do?"
"Sure. I kick him in the nuts and while he's down I rub horseshit into his hair. I'm writing 'I've never won a fair fight 1d6' on my sheet."
"Cool!"

Legit.

-Vincent

I've always said that "Say yes or roll dice" applies to the players just as much as the GM.

Willow? Are you convinced?

-Vincent

Not completely.  It doesn't help that your 'Fair Fight' example seems to me like how I invision the Knights of the Dinner Table guys playing Dogs.  :)

However, I'm able to see the case for such Accomplishment framing.  I don't really like it and probably won't use it in my games, but I think I get it.

If that's what you see, then it makes sense that you don't like it!

The rule came out of actual play, an actual initiation that went really strangely. My advice, seriously, is to stay open to the rule - you might smack your forehead and go oh THAT'S why, when the time comes.

-Vincent

I think that fair-fight example rocks. It illustrates something about your character, doesn't it?

But also, one reason not to just Give straight away is to take some tasty Fallout. Fallout in accomplishments won't kill you (well, it could, I guess, if you started messing around with guns, but I would handwave that away this once - this ain't classic Traveller), but it could give you extra traits. And extra traits are more resources you can pull in during play, which makes your character more effective.

I dunno if that viewpoint helps any, but it works for me.

I had a kick-ass initiation use this rule the first time I ran Dogs. (way back here)

Check out that Brother Archibald.

James