My players are concerned about something in play -- a situation where they still have a great point to make or something they know is a winning argument, but they don't have the dice in front of them to support it.

I've explained up and down about how the dice represent how well equipped you feel you are when you go into the conflict, as most of us can tell in real life whether we have the emotional patience for an argument or will just have to end up giving in or throwing the fine china.  But that doesn't really cover the fact that you can be emotionally strung-out but still have a great argument.

We're all veteran role-players, so we know the kinds of dice tricks and justifications needed for other game systems when you have a character with different capabilities from the player, especially in Intelligence.  But that doesn't seem to fly with DITV.  To just say "Well, the player has a good argument but the character doesn't" would really disrupt the player-to-character tie in DITV.

What are we missing about what the true nature of a conflict and the dice might be?

The dice are the dice. 

If you roll some good numbers and push 2 dice out with a high total than you have a good arguement that may win it for you (or at least make them take the blow).  If you push 2 weak dice out with a low total while your opponent has good dice left then no matter how good your arguement sounds when spoken...its unconvincing.  How do we know the other person isn't convinced by what we just KNOW is a debate winner...because the dice tell us that.  No different than the great arguement we spend an hour typing in an internet forum that everyone subsequently ignores. 

How to use that to your advantage in DiTV play, 2ways:
The first is easy and you'll find lots of threads on it in the forum.  Escalate and call on Traits.  Its almost next to impossible for a Dog to not have any good dice left.  You may not have any good dice left on the table but chances are you've got the potential for good dice on your sheet.  Figure out a way to call on that Trait, or be prepared to up the ante with an escalation.  If you've already burned through all of your available dice than one of two things is likely.  Either you're in an arena where your character isn't very good...in which case that's the breaks.  Or you probably should have broken out your killer arguement earlier in order to get it in play when you did have the dice to back it up. Also be sure to use your Fallout Traits wisely.  If you take Fallout in one conflict use that Fallout to grab some Traits that you will have available to call in to play for a follow up Conflict. 

The second way is to become skilled at what you're asking for in your raises.  See if you can force your opponent to take the blow then the event you called for in your raise comes true (as long as it doesn't resolve the stakes of the conflict).  Your opponent always has 1 unbeatable way to block any raise and ensure it doesn't come true...and that's to Give.  Giving blocks the raise but yields the stakes...essentially its a thematic point in the game where discover exactly what someone is and isn't willing to lose to get the stakes. 

So if you really really want to win the stakes, a good tactic is to come up with a raise that your opponent will not and cannot bring themselves to accept and use it at a time when your opponent can't block but will have to Take the Blow.  If they positively cannot accept your raise...they'll have to yield to avoid it...even if they'd have enough dice to eventually win the stakes if they stayed in.  That's really the best way to get a true "debate ending arguement"...otherwise you have to play out the conflict and save the really cool thing until the end and hope you win on Dice.

Of course the danger there is if the opponent accepts the Fall Out and lets your raise happen...was it something that you can live with haveing done...

Hey Brian,

Here's something you might be forgetting- anyone can Give in a conflict at anytime, for any reason.  If the players push forward weak dice, but give the most awesome point, where you can't think of a way to Block the blow, or Take it and keep going, then just Give.

It's a feature of the system a lot of people overlook.

Chris

Thanks for the advice!

This is mostyly backing up what's already been said, but having weak or no dice to put forward in your argument doesn't indicate it was a bad argument or you could not make it - it merely indicates the argument was not persuasive with regard to the stakes. There could be any number  of reasons for this, not lreast of which being that however good your argument is, the other guy doesn't have to listen.

Thomas wrote:
This is mostyly backing up what's already been said, but having weak or no dice to put forward in your argument doesn't indicate it was a bad argument or you could not make it - it merely indicates the argument was not persuasive with regard to the stakes. There could be any number  of reasons for this, not lreast of which being that however good your argument is, the other guy doesn't have to listen.

Totally. In an argument, a block or dodge might be a counterargument, but it also might be me interrupting you before you get to make your killer point.

Brian, is this a concern from play, or is it a concern your players want addressed before they're willing to play?

-Vincent

Also keep in mind that there are a few (lots) of people that good arguments, logic and facts just bounce right off of them. They believe what they believe, and no amount of inconsistency in their beliefs or evidence of facts they are shown will convince them otherwise.  For many people debate is the fine art of yelling your point while ignoring anything someone else says. Reasoned arguments only make such folk mad.

lumpley wrote: Brian, is this a concern from play, or is it a concern your players want addressed before they're willing to play?

Hello,

I'd like to repeat the advice about Giving above, with more emphasis that you as GM should consider the option of Giving. It does not have a parallel in most RPG rule-sets and therefore, the more experienced the role-player, the more likely he or she will not understand it.

Let's say you're the GM and you roll for your NPC, getting a good roll. The player rolls and gets eeny-weeny teeny dice. The roll sucks. The dice sucks. The NPC's dice have destroyed the PC's dice, and just looking at them, never mind "get more dice," or whatever, everyone knows that the PC is totally hosed. By the dice.

You, the GM, may Give. If you do, your NPC loses. The player-character wins. (It works both ways; players can Give too.) This may be the solution to the issue that the player is talking about.

Without knowing more about you and your play-group, it is impossible to tell whether this is going to help you. Maybe it will, right off the bat. Or maybe you and the other players have kind of a "thing" going on where you really like to beat one another by the dice, case closed, and perhaps many of your play-habits and desires are wrapped around that. Or maybe it's the opposite and everyone is used to overriding dice with "good arguments." Or maybe you've been known to decide as GM which way a conflict goes, but are accustomed to doing so only secretly, and therefore doing so in front of everybody isn't in your toolkit. Other backgrounds are possible too. And hey, maybe it's just rules-familiarity and all that's called for is time. These are not meant to be guesses, but examples that I've observed of why other people have not used the Give rules.

The one thing about the Give rules, though, is that no one can demand the other person use them. It's an option that can be exercised by either side of the conflict. Again, what you and your group will make of this is invisible to me (I'm not there). I do recommend that you look over the Give rules carefully and share them with everyone at the table.

Best, Ron

What Ron's talking about is what I was trying to get at with this post:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20143.0

Sometimes the context of the fiction contributes significantly to your mechanical choices even though your mechanical options are technically wide open.

Jesse

Aside from Giving, though (which is a perfectly viable option), consider that tensions are probably running high if you're in a conflict.

Just because you've got a good point doesn't mean that you'll win the argument.

Sr. Alice: "They've obviously in love. They're not hurting anybody."

Br. Bob: PUNCH!