Vincent,

Is there any rulebook text you'd phrase differently, or mechanics you'd handle differently
if you were just-now releasing Dogs in the Vineyard today?...
based on what you've learned since its actual release.

--Curly

Absolutely.

I'd do NPCs' dice like Afraid does, which you can read here - although those particular dice are scaled for Afraid, not for Dogs.

I'd have escalating count as a block or dodge without dice, just like giving does (except that you're still in the conflict, of course).

I'd handle group NPCs' seeing and raising differently, again like Afraid does, here ... although that particular paragraph is pretty unclear, isn't it?

But yeah, in general, Afraid shows how I've reflected on Dogs' rules in play. There's some stuff that's suited to Afraid because of its subject matter, that I wouldn't do in Dogs - the scene framing fallout thing, for instance - but in most ways I expect Afraid to be mechanically a straightforward improvement.

As for rulebook text, no. I mean, there's a certain typo that's survived since the first freaking print run, but nothing substantial I'd change. I've learned that a) some things, people are going to have problems understanding no matter what I write about them, and b) some people, they just aren't going to understand the text no matter how clear it is.

I'm glad this forum exists! Here, I get to answer the latter people's questions, and the rest of you can answer the former's.

-Vincent

Okay, I gotta know - what is the certain typo that survived since the first print run?

"roll Acuity and Heat."

-Vincent

"roll Acuity and Heat."

Matt wrote:

"roll Acuity and Heat."

Whatever game that actually belongs in, I think it should be designed soon.

That's got to be a bitch of a typo.

Yeah no kidding. Its survival instincts are Not Fooling Around.

Know what's going to happen? Sooner or later, it's going to hook up with the other resiliant typo, the one about edged weapons in the axe-to-the-head example, and they're going to have little baby supertypos. Sooner or later, the book's going to be OVERRUN.

-Vincent

Hey, Vincent.  Can you go into a little more detail about how the group conflicts would work?

It sounds like, when seeing for a group, you push your 2 dice forward and the just stay there, blocking, taking the blow, or reversing it for as many raises as you've got people in the group.  Is that correct?

If so, I've probably got a bunch of other questions about how that would work out in play.  But I'm really interested in finding a slicker way to handle group conflicts in Dogs.

Didn't you also, at one point, mention a desire to give the Dogs fewer dice starting off?

Regards,
Daniel

Right -

It's your Dog plus your two friends' Dogs versus my sorceress and her two thugs.

You raise with a 3+4=7: I shoot her in the head!
I see with a 5+2=7: Thug 1 shoots at you and you have to jerk back. You miss your shot!
Your friend raises with a 9: I shoot her in the gut!
I scowl and add a 3 to my 5+2, seeing with a 5+2+3=10: She stumbles back, blood stains her dress.
I take 3d10 fallout.
Your other friend raises with a 5: I shoot her in the throat!
I set the 2 and the 3 aside, seeing with a 5: You miss! Instead you hit...
I raise with the same 5 and a 3: ...Brother Eustace!

That's as fully as I've thought this thing through. I'll happily try to answer the questions it raises, but my answer might be "huh, yeah ... that's a problem. Huh."

-Vincent

Ah, I got it.  That actually covers most of my questions, I think.  It's more like you're creating a separate pool of dice you can reuse a number of times.

Would either side also supply dice to the conflict?

Regards,
Daniel

Am I correct in reading the Affraid rules that when you are forced to see the 9, you could add a 4 (or higher) and dodge or block with the 5+4, setting aside the 2?

Frank

That's a cool idea. I hope it is right.
You'd then keep the 2 in case another player raised with 10 or 11.

I don't remember! Give it a try and let me know how it goes.

-Vincent