Hi everyone!

I think these questions have been asked before on this forum... but regrettably I can't seem to actually search it, so please forgive me for putting them once again onto paper.

I ran my first Dogs game Sunday last and it went amazingly well. Everyone liked the system and I think that it'll be really popular with my small group. I just had two questions:

1. What do I do about the players ganging up on people? When I have three players and one NPC, using the multiple combatants rule seems ridiculously unfair against the NPCs: when they're forced to match three NPCs raising one after the other, even with Demonic Influence rolled on their behalf they're out of dice and quick. If I force the other PCs to all "rally behind" one PC, though, and contribute nothing more than aiding dice, it seems like a conflict involves only the GM and only one PC. Is that the intention? Any way to get around conflicts either being skewed against NPCs or one-player affairs?

2. How do you give to a gunshot? That is to say, the stakes are, "Does Sister Elena reconsider her claim on the child?" She doesn't want to do that even a little bit; she escalates all the way up to gunfighting, but when she gets shot with a 15 and can't see she elects to give. So... does Sister Elena get shot?

Thanks for your help!

On #2, no she doesn't get shot.  Giving sacrifices your stakes in favor of avoiding the consequences of the raise.  If she "takes the blow" then she's still in the running for the stakes, but yes she does get shot.

Effective, unignorable raises is the GMs primary tool against your issue in #1.  It doesn't matter if the players have enough dice to run you out of dodge, if you can come up with even one killer raise that they can't just outright block you can still get them to give.  This is the "even now" approach to raises.  I raise with the death of the steward's young son who got caught in the cross fire.  You say your stakes are important to you...are they, even now?

I also recommend a non official technique of making the Dogs see each others raises if they are using different techniques to pursue the same stakes.  If one Dog is trying to be gentle and kind while "just talking" and another is trying to be angry and intimidating, I'd make them see each others raises as they are, to some extent, working to cross purposes.  Technically, only the person making the raise decides who has to see, but on the theory that too many chefs spoil the soup, I think this is an effective way to highlight differences in philosophy between Dogs.

#2 has currently confused me as well.  Valamir, you say that when you give, you lose the stakes but you avoid the consequences of the raise.  In the rules on page 31-32 there is an example of a conflict (the one to stop swearing) which ends with the following give:

[code]I Raise: “He holds you and your teacher’s man comes up with the soap.”
You decide not to Escalate to a fight and instead Give: “jeeze, they wash my mouth out?”
And I say, “oh yes indeed.”
You didn’t Take any Blows so you don’t roll Fallout.[/code]

That makes it look like if I give, I loose both the raise and the stakes, but I avoid fallout.  On page 61, however, it says:

[code]When you Give instead of Seeing, you don’t need to Take the Blow. In fact, one of the best reasons to Give is to avoid a Blow you can’t bear to Take.[/code]

That implies that I avoid the raises consequences but I loose the stakes.  It confused me why the character got his mouth washed out when he gave.  Shouldn't he have just stopped swearing after knowing that they really would have washed his mouth out?

When you give, you're entitled to say how your character gives - that is, what your character does with the outstanding raise - and you don't take fallout. Those are the rules.

In play, you'll find that the fictional events have momentum. Since the outcome is the same either way - your character stops swearing, you take no fallout - sometimes you'll choose to go along with the final raise, sometimes you'll choose to block or dodge it. There's no rule about which you must choose under what circumstances.

-Vincent