Topic: [DITV] Failure
Started by: JC
Started on: 5/20/2007
Board: Actual Play
On 5/20/2007 at 11:42am, JC wrote:
[DITV] Failure
Hi there :)
GMed my second game of Dogs yesterday (my first very short AP post can be found here: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=325133). This time around, it went all kinds of wrong.
For this second outing, I used my own town (description here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=23886.0). Going in, I felt it was OK. Probably not the best town around, maybe even had some weak spots, but playable. Well, it didn’t work out.
First of all, the circumstances. There were five of us, all experienced role-players. I’m no GNS guru, but I guess we’re pretty Sim oriented, with some Nar and Gam thrown in from time to time. The plan for the day was to play another player’s first try at running a game without rules (freeform?). It went OK, but ended quite quickly (four hours or something). So it was 7 PM, and I had brought my Dogs scenario over for just such an occasion. Everyone was on-board with trying it, so off we went. One GM and four players.
Let me state right away that four players was probably too much for me at that point. Maybe if I had a better grasp of the rules, it would have been OK. But tonight, two or three would have been better.
Anyway: I read through the setting and the rules. I had prepared some adequate music, which contributed nicely too setting the mood. After the first part of character creation, they were eager to start, but I insisted we play through accomplishments. It took some time, because there were four of them to run, and because I hesitated quite a bit about what kind of stakes were appropriate. Nothing phenomenal happened, but I think everyone agreed in the end it was useful to get a better grasp of the game mechanics.
Finally, we “go to town”. Now, if you look at how the story unfolded, you might think things went OK. A Dog tries to teach the kids some respect, but refuses to escalate and gives. The Dogs snoop around, everyone’s complaining to them, accusing everyone else, and asking them to make it better.
The Dogs make Brother August admit to drinking and publicly humiliate him. They save Sister Marilla’s life when she gives birth. Another awesome conflict: Sister Temperance begs a Dog to take her to the Steward’s home, planning to ask him to marry her to him. By that point, the Dog had had enough of talking, so he hits her and shoves her aside, so as not to give, knowing she might be badly hurt. The Steward and his wife save the woman's life, and bring her back to their home. Finally, the Dogs try to exorcise a wounded Sister Temperance, and end up killing her. So far so good.
Except the players (save maybe for one of them) didn’t enjoy the game at all. They said the system kept them from role-playing. They said the dice tactics felt like “Magic” etc. They said too much depended on how well you rolled. They said they were too tempted to min-max their characters.
Another point was that they found the NPCs too powerful, especially the fact that I could pick the right traits during the conflicts, whereas the players had to chose their traits at the beginning. This probably had to do with how I managed conflicts with multiple opponents. When there were several Dogs, I let Dogs aid each other by giving two dice. I figured this was simpler than running everyone’s raises and sees. But I reckon it made the Dogs much weaker than they could or should have been. Even when it was one on one though, the Dogs sometimes had a hard time.
My fumbling around with the rules sure didn’t help. Setting cool stakes seemed far from simple. There are also lots of ambiguous cases, or at least that’s what they seemed like at the time, under pressure.
OK, besides from bitching, I also have a few concrete questions.
Question n°1: Once I’ve escalated to fighting, say by hitting my opponent, can my subsequent raises be talking? If so, what would the fallout be like from those last “just talking” raises?
Question n°2: What’s the fallout level if I’m just talking but my opponent’s all the way up to shooting? I guess I’d take d10s and he’d take d4s, but I’m not sure.
Question n°3: Say the stakes are “does the PC expel the demon from the NPC?”. One of my raises is “the NPC gets up and strangles the PC”. The PC’s out of dice, and gives, but there’s not much fallout to speak of. The PC loses the conflict, and the NPC is still possessed. So far so good. But is the PC now dead, because he couldn’t see my strangling raise?
Question n°4: Are stakes like “the NPC persuades you to do this or that” legit? Say Sister Temperance wants the Dog to marry her to the Steward. Can that be what’s at stake? I feel I should set some kind of smaller stake, but I just can’t figure out what.
Question n°5: Can I force a dilemma on the players? As in the classic “she’s giving birth, it's going very wrong, and you can only save the mother or the child”. When I sprang that one, the player said “I want to save both, let’s have a conflict”.
A couple of other things turned up, but I can’t remember them right now.
All in all, I feel like I’ve failed both the game and my gaming buddies. It’s nothing dramatic, of course. But I really wanted this game to rock, and I really wanted my friends to like it. No such luck…
It’s especially disappointing because some of these guys tried out The Mountain Witch with me two years ago, which also ended in me not running the game very well and them not liking it (AP thread here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16985.0).
OK… Uh, let’s end with something constructive… thing’s I’d do differently, if I could do it all over again:
- less PCs (say, two or three);
- insist on simple accomplishments;
- use the “multiple opponent” rules, instead of just the “helping” ones;
- clarify that the rules are good at creating an interesting story, not simulating things accurately.
Please feel free to chime in, be it with advice, questions, or just to sympathize with my misery :).
Cheers!
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 23886
Topic 16985
On 5/20/2007 at 11:59am, JC wrote:
Re: [DITV] Failure
EDIT
Just remembered: the players also complained about the "experience fallout" rules. They felt that adding a die to a stat was just too powerful, and not justified considering how little happened during some conflicts. I tried to point out the fact that anyone could veto something if they felt it wasn't kosher, but that didn't seem to satisfy them.
On 5/20/2007 at 2:59pm, Eliarhiman6 wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
Hi JC!
I will try to get a shot at what went wrong. Just remember that I wasn't there, so I could make assumptions about the way you played the game that aren't true. And please remember that English is not my native language.
JC wrote:
For this second outing, I used my own town (description here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=23886.0). Going in, I felt it was OK. Probably not the best town around, maybe even had some weak spots, but playable. Well, it didn’t work out.
I don't know if this contribuited to the problems or not, but usually is good advice for novice players to play a town where everything got so bad to go to "Hate & Murder". More simple, basic emotions and reactions are much easier to play than more nuanced social problems (you can shoot a murdered, and it feels good. When you have to convince a wife to return to his husband and you are not used to the social weight of a dog's judment, it can be hairy)
A thing that could cause problem is the pre-setting of the results in the case of Sister Marilla’s pregnancy. When you say that the dogs can save only the mother or the child, but not both, you are pre-setting a result that should be played instead. "You can save only the mother or the child, but not both" should be a strong raise you make during the conflict, not a pre-set ending condition.
Other than this, I have some doubt about some other aspects of the town (some parts of the sin ladder seems to me upside-down) but I am not sure about this and in any case from your account the problems you had were more about the technical aspects of the game.
First of all, the circumstances. There were five of us, all experienced role-players. I’m no GNS guru, but I guess we’re pretty Sim oriented, with some Nar and Gam thrown in from time to time.
Did you talk with them about the objective of the game, about the kind of game it is? They are familiar with a kind of game where the objective isn't to win or "be something", but to create a satisfying story all together?
I am asking because I often see threads in internet forum where people tie themselves in knots trying to play the historical mindset of the times or trying to "realistically play mormons" and it seems to be that this "trying to play it like it was sim" is the most common cause of social-based problems some people have with the game (the most common cause of the technical problems is instead the thinking that some rules like the town and npc creation are "optional" or the misreading of the conflict rules)
Let me state right away that four players was probably too much for me at that point. Maybe if I had a better grasp of the rules, it would have been OK. But tonight, two or three would have been better.
Four players is always a little too much for DitV. The game is for 2-3 players plus the GM. It can be played with more, but it becomes difficult to create enough adversity (both in the mechanical - i.e serious threats - than in the narrative sense) for everyone. So when I play with many players I try to split up the party, and tell the players why I am doing this so they collaborate. They are still in the same city but they don't move all together all of the time. (It's easier when the players understand that the GM can't really hurt their character without their collaboration)
By that point, the Dog had had enough of talking, so he hits her and shoves her aside, so as not to give, knowing she might be badly hurt. The Steward and his wife save the woman's life, and bring her back to their home. Finally, the Dogs try to exorcise a wounded Sister Temperance, and end up killing her. So far so good.
From this description, it seems that the players got frustrated at some point from "all the talking". It's one of the reasons you really should go to "hate and murder" for beginning players, and in any case push for stakes that make something happen. "I convince her that she is wrong" it's not a good stake, because at the end nothing is visibly "happening". It should be "you force her to repent her sin in front of the entire congregation" or something like this (with raises even more dramatic, with screaming, with tearing of hairs, and if you played with the supernatural setting on "high", even special effects like red eyes and sulphur). Think about a movie, what would get the audience's attention. Don't try to be subtle, if there is not enough interest from the players about the subtle thing to make even that dramatic.
Except the players (save maybe for one of them) didn’t enjoy the game at all. They said the system kept them from role-playing. They said the dice tactics felt like “Magic” etc. They said too much depended on how well you rolled. They said they were too tempted to min-max their characters.
Some of this is more about their habits, I think. When people see so many dices, they tend to begin to micro-manage the conflict like a micro-game inside a game. This is completly wrong and can really ruin the game. It's not that people shouldn't "play well" (I really don't like games where you have to forget basic strategy to play...), it's that they should undestand that the best strategy in dogs is really simple, and it's about "knowing how much you can stand to lose to get what you want", and not about micro-manage the number of dices to win the stakes.
It's not enough to tell people this, though. (I always tell it anyway, it can' hurt and it help processing what they see in the game). You should show this in the game. When they begin to micro-manage, you wait for your chance (that could never arrive, if you play with four dogs all together who can always help each other) and hit them with an imparable raise that really hurt them. They have their strategy that will make them win and you are like "OK, but the child die", or "OK, but to go on you have to take 4d10 fallout", or "OK, but your family heirloom is destroyed". This usually shock them from their attention to "win" and force them to decide between taking the raise of give.
When they have decided, and you see that you have not the dices to make another strong raise, just give.
You should totally play to get moments like these. If your dice are not good enough, just give. Even if you could give them some little fallout, who cares? Stay in conflicts only if you can force them to decide AGAINST basic strategy to get something they want in the "story". Only this (coupled with the realization that they can easily win every time) can stop the micro-management of the "game inside a game".
Another point was that they found the NPCs too powerful, especially the fact that I could pick the right traits during the conflicts, whereas the players had to chose their traits at the beginning.
This sound really strange to me. This is not how DitV works. (but maybe I simply misunderstood what you wrote)
To be sure, I will write the way conflict works:
1) you set the stakes
2) you roll ONLY the (2) stats and eventual relationship dice, and NO OTHERS. No traits, no material possessions, no helping dice, nothing.
3) then, every time you bring a trait or an object in the narrative of a raise or a see, you can roll its dice (even if you don't use these exact dice in that occasion). You can only roll the dice of a trait or object one time for conflict, but you can roll for how many traits you want (if you can get them in the narration).
So, if you said that you have to choose the traits that go in the conflict at the beginning, you misread the rules.
If instead you are saying that the Dogs have the traits already written on the sheet, and the npc doesn't, this is correct, but remember that the NPCs have a lot less traits (4) and usually a lot less dices than the PC (you did use the proto-NPC rule, right? It's not "optional" at all. It balance the game)
This probably had to do with how I managed conflicts with multiple opponents. When there were several Dogs, I let Dogs aid each other by giving two dice. I figured this was simpler than running everyone’s raises and sees. But I reckon it made the Dogs much weaker than they could or should have been. Even when it was one on one though, the Dogs sometimes had a hard time.
Mmmm... I don't like this at all. The way raises and sees work is the heart of the conflict system, they move the story and provoke conseguences. See what I talked about the micro-management above. I think that you reduced the conflict ONLY to micro-management of dices, instead of a strong narrative. The fact that they even got weaker (and more helpless to move the story) is just icing on the cake.
If you ever feel that a big conflicts with a lot of raises and see is becoming boring, just give. This is all you need to do. There's no reason to change the rules to avoid something that is already avoided by following the normal rules.
OK, besides from bitching, I also have a few concrete questions.
Question n°1: Once I’ve escalated to fighting, say by hitting my opponent, can my subsequent raises be talking?
Yes, but remember that a valid raise is "something that your opponent(s) can't ignore", so they have to be words with a weight. (the usual example is "Luke, I am your father" from "The Empire Strikes back". It was after a lightsaber fight, but it was still an hell of a raise...)
If so, what would the fallout be like from those last “just talking” raises?
The fallout always depends on "what happen in the fictional narration", so for example if you say "I am you father" it's d4, but if you raise with "I scream and he jumps for the surprise and fall from the ladder" it's d8, even if you only "talked".
Question n°2: What’s the fallout level if I’m just talking but my opponent’s all the way up to shooting? I guess I’d take d10s and he’d take d4s, but I’m not sure.
You are right, but with the precisation above (another example: if he shoots,but he say he shoots in the air to scare you, and you take the blow like "I am scared by the shots", you take d4s...)
Question n°3: Say the stakes are “does the PC expel the demon from the NPC?”.
Just as an aside, you shouldn't set the method with the stakes. In this case, the stakes would be "is the demon expelled from xxx?". Then it's the conflict resolution that say if this happen, who do that, and how.
One of my raises is “the NPC gets up and strangles the PC”. The PC’s out of dice, and gives, but there’s not much fallout to speak of. The PC loses the conflict, and the NPC is still possessed. So far so good. But is the PC now dead, because he couldn’t see my strangling raise?
Not at all. He blocked your raise, because giving BLOCK EVERY RAISE, no matter how many dices got pushed . It's the heart of the conflict strategy for the GM. All you have to do in a conflict is having a raise so bad (in a good way) that the players prefere giving up even on a conflict they would win. In this manner you defeat micro-management and force the predominance of the choices in the narrative over the dices.
This is a very, very important rule. And I have seen so many people miss that (and so play a broken game) that I would advice Vincent to put that in a big bold bright red font on every page in the next printings...
Question n°4: Are stakes like “the NPC persuades you to do this or that” legit?
No. See this thread
Question n°5: Can I force a dilemma on the players? As in the classic “she’s giving birth, it's going very wrong, and you can only save the mother or the child”. When I sprang that one, the player said “I want to save both, let’s have a conflict”.
They are right, you shouldn't pre-set the ending of a conflict. But you could totally make that a strong raise (I already talked about this at the beginning of this post)
OK… Uh, let’s end with something constructive… thing’s I’d do differently, if I could do it all over again:
- less PCs (say, two or three);
- insist on simple accomplishments;
- use the “multiple opponent” rules, instead of just the “helping” ones;
- clarify that the rules are good at creating an interesting story, not simulating things accurately.
Well, you already got most of the things I talked above, so take this post like a support for the conclusions you already arrived to, plus some more advice.
Best Wishes for your next DitV game!
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 23886
Topic 23935
On 5/20/2007 at 10:02pm, The Mule wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
Moreno wrote:
Question n°4: Are stakes like “the NPC persuades you to do this or that” legit?
No. See this thread
Incorrect!
Vincent makes some comments on stakes forcing the Dogs to do things
Original poster, regarding your questions.
How on earth can you min/max Dogs? There's no mins! Min-Maxing is finding the most cost efficient ratios of character effectiveness currency; finding harmless flaws to pay for the most potent advantages.
Dogs has no flaws. d4s aren't flaws. Traits that don't seem universally applicable? Not flaws! Why not? They still are universally applicable, they just make you stretch your imagination.
I have "Courageous 2d8"; a friend is trying to convince me to stop loafing around and help him. He raises "There's cute girls there!" and I use my courageous trait in my raise "I can get cute girls whenever I want."
So you can't make a character that's somehow "too powerful". The Dogs are supposed to win. One Dog should wipe the floor with any nonpossessed NPC. Absolutely take him to town. A pack of Dogs working together should steamroll the whole town.
So why even bother rolling? The GM's job is to ask "O RLY?!", and the dice let you do that. When the GM raises, he's not saying "I'm trying to stop you from getting the stakes," he's saying "Do you think getting the stakes are worth this happening?"
Try saying that before your raises, I found it helped me get in a good mindset for making proper raises. If the answer is obvious, then it's not a good raise. Not every raise needs to punch the player in the face, but that's the general idea you're going for.
There's nothing the players can do with with the rules to stop you from being able to do that. You need to convince them that there is nothing wrong with any attempt on their part to maximize their effectiveness. This is SUPER IMPORTANT for them to realize. I'm pretty sure Vincent Baker has flat out said "If you're powergaming Dogs, you're playing it right".
Your comment about NPCs being too powerful is a warning flag! Follow the rules! All of them! It's super, super important. That should absolutely not happen unless the Dogs aren't using their traits for some reason. If that's the case, tell them "use your traits! If it's not obvious how, be imaginative!"
NPC should have no more traits than the Proto-NPC rules tell you. As long as they follow those rules, even with the GM assigning traits' names on the fly the Dogs shouldn't have a problem with their dice.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 23935
Topic 16114
On 5/21/2007 at 2:33pm, Eliarhiman6 wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
The wrote:Moreno wrote:
Question n°4: Are stakes like “the NPC persuades you to do this or that” legit?
No. See this thread
Incorrect!
Vincent makes some comments on stakes forcing the Dogs to do things
Mmmmm.... I interpret that post in a different way. What I got from it was that the Stewards of the faith can FORCE the Dog to repent in public (If they win that conflict), exactly as the Dogs can force to repent in public the townspeople, but what the Dogs REALLY BELIEVE can't be at stake in a conflict.
Oh, well, only Vincent can say what he really meant. I hope that he will read this and tell us.
But in any case, I don't think I will ever frame a conflict like "if I win all you dogs will believe this about the faith" or even "If I win you will judge the sorcerer innocent and hang the victim". The way I see the game, it would have the same sense that having the moral decisions of the dogs rolled on a table.
I could instead frame a conflict where social pressure (even from the other dogs) force a Dog to do something that he believe it's not right. At that time, the dog has to choose between be convinced to do something he believe is wrong, or escalate. I agree that this is powerful conflict, but is powerful because it force the character to make a difficult choice.
But if the stakes are about what the dog THINKS, (as for example In a normal conversation where somebody, talking normally, say something to the dog, to convince him), it's difficult to justify in a narration the dogs that use the gun to avoid CHANGING OPINION. What you get is (1) a boring conflict (if the player choose the simulation of the character's mindset over the victory over the guilty) or (2) a gamist drift (where you begin to play dogs to win the conflicts that allow you to discover the guilty)
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 23935
Topic 16114
On 5/21/2007 at 7:54pm, The Mule wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
Your conscience can't be at stake. That doesn't mean people can't persuade you to do things, or even think things.
NPC X can have stakes "Convince you he's innocent". NPC Y, who you *know* is a Sorcerer, can have stakes "Make you fall in love with her". I'm pretty sure the GM can even have an NPC set stakes "Makes you forget XXX ever happened".
So your mind isn't safe! Just your conscience.
Now, I think the initial question of "belief" touches more on conscience than I initially thought in my first reading, so my correction of your statement may have been out of place. In which case, I apologize.
Nobody can tell you "what is the right thing to do". People *can* force you to do things, which includes thinking things!
If NPC X convinces you he's innocent, you can still shoot him anyway. That just means your character shot a man he thinks is innocent. It's up to you the player to then answer how he feels about it. If NPC X convinces you not to shoot him, that doesn't mean you think he's innocent; you may be letting a murderer live! How do you feel about it?
If think you wouldn't feel happy about it, remember that it can only happen if you Give, and I have yet to see someone Give because they literally did not have anything left on their sheet. I've only seen people Give because they thought a Raise wasn't worth Taking the Blow or escalating.
Sidenote: Why would I play dogs in order to discover the guilty? The town literally throws it's problems at my feet!
On 5/21/2007 at 8:48pm, Adam Dray wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
JC wrote:
The Dogs make Brother August admit to drinking and publicly humiliate him. They save Sister Marilla’s life when she gives birth. Another awesome conflict: Sister Temperance begs a Dog to take her to the Steward’s home, planning to ask him to marry her to him. By that point, the Dog had had enough of talking, so he hits her and shoves her aside, so as not to give, knowing she might be badly hurt. The Steward and his wife save the woman's life, and bring her back to their home. Finally, the Dogs try to exorcise a wounded Sister Temperance, and end up killing her. So far so good.
Except the players (save maybe for one of them) didn’t enjoy the game at all. They said the system kept them from role-playing. They said the dice tactics felt like “Magic” etc. They said too much depended on how well you rolled. They said they were too tempted to min-max their characters.
They did all that and they don't think they role-played? It sounds to me like they role-played a lot but didn't get out of it what they expected. What do you think "role-playing" means to them? Is it a talking-in-voices, being-the-character thing? If so, maybe it's just a matter of pacing. If they're willing to try the game again, give them more time to chat between dice rolling. When they're ready to kick ass and take names, they'll reach for the dice. Push for conflict in the fiction and let the dice come to the forefront when everyone agrees it's time for that.
I read the "dice tactics felt like 'Magic'" comment as a failure for everyone to really connect the dice mechanics to the fiction. Basically, you're doing one thing on the table with the dice, and you're talking about this other thing happening in the story, and people don't really think they're connected enough. Obviously, they're connected in one direction (dice affecting the fiction) but maybe that connection doesn't make sense to them. What's their specific beef with it? Is it that they don't like social-force mechanics (the dice can't make my character / "me" feel a certain way!)?
It might be that they just don't like this sort of game. Maybe they want to get into their characters and "be there," and they aren't interested in all this making-a-point stuff. Don't force it if that's the case.
Maybe give a couple short examples of Actual Play that really worked with these guys -- any game system. What expectations do these players have when they sit down to play Dogs in the Vineyard or The Mountain Witch?
On 5/22/2007 at 4:15am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
Except the players (save maybe for one of them) didn’t enjoy the game at all. They said the system kept them from role-playing. They said the dice tactics felt like “Magic” etc. They said too much depended on how well you rolled. They said they were too tempted to min-max their characters.
Perhaps a common pattern in gamers is
A: They think leaving arbitration to the GM rather than dice still leads to unexpected results.
B: They haven't realised that they can often subtely manipulate the GM, thus getting exactly the results they want.
Particuarly with B it's a very comfy zone, apparently full of danger but with a comforting propensity to 'surprisingly' always go the way you wanted it to (unless someone doesn't read someone elses signals right - at which time howls of outrage happen).
You might be stuck - unless a person has realised that and/or gotten sick of it, they'll stay there (or your dealing with a new to roleplay player and they never entered that zone to begin with).
Have any of them expressed any desire to have things happen without just deciding it all? Do they all think they are playing dangerous when it's entirely up to the GM to decide how things pan out?
On 5/22/2007 at 5:40pm, JC wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
hi guys n gals!
I've only got a minute, so I just wanted to say thanks for all the great replies (all your comments are spot on) and I'll post answers as soon as I can
On 5/22/2007 at 6:42pm, Brand_Robins wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
The wrote:
If think you wouldn't feel happy about it, remember that it can only happen if you Give, and I have yet to see someone Give because they literally did not have anything left on their sheet. I've only seen people Give because they thought a Raise wasn't worth Taking the Blow or escalating.
I've seen it. More than once.
On 5/22/2007 at 8:18pm, JC wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
I don't know if this contribuited to the problems or not, but usually is good advice for novice players to play a town where everything got so bad to go to "Hate & Murder". More simple, basic emotions and reactions are much easier to play than more nuanced social problems (you can shoot a murdered, and it feels good. When you have to convince a wife to return to his husband and you are not used to the social weight of a dog's judment, it can be hairy)
good point
I felt it would be more interesting to have the killing start after the Dogs arrived, but I should have gone for the sure hit at this early stage
A thing that could cause problem is the pre-setting of the results in the case of Sister Marilla’s pregnancy. When you say that the dogs can save only the mother or the child, but not both, you are pre-setting a result that should be played instead. "You can save only the mother or the child, but not both" should be a strong raise you make during the conflict, not a pre-set ending condition.
okay, I'll remember that
Other than this, I have some doubt about some other aspects of the town (some parts of the sin ladder seems to me upside-down) but I am not sure about this and in any case from your account the problems you had were more about the technical aspects of the game.
that's right
I'd still be interested in your advice though
not sure which thread would be most appropriate...
Did you talk with them about the objective of the game, about the kind of game it is? They are familiar with a kind of game where the objective isn't to win or "be something", but to create a satisfying story all together?
I am asking because I often see threads in internet forum where people tie themselves in knots trying to play the historical mindset of the times or trying to "realistically play mormons" and it seems to be that this "trying to play it like it was sim" is the most common cause of social-based problems some people have with the game (the most common cause of the technical problems is instead the thinking that some rules like the town and npc creation are "optional" or the misreading of the conflict rules)
I clearly stated that this was a "narrativist" game before playing
I also try and share my limited knowledge of RPG-theory once in a while with my gaming friends
but I didn't clearly explain what "narrativist" meant before playing
I'm not sure if it was because I forgot, or because I was under the impression everyone knew what was up, or that they would "get it" by themselves
after exchanging some e-mails after the game, I realized they had no idea that "narrativism" means "having the players make choices that affect the scenario"
they thought it was about having the players contribute to scene descriptions
so that's one thing I'm clearly explaining next time I play DITV
another thing I should have said is that this game is good at promoting narrativism, but not so good at simulating things, so they shouldn't be disappointed if very different things are handled in similar ways
From this description, it seems that the players got frustrated at some point from "all the talking". It's one of the reasons you really should go to "hate and murder" for beginning players, and in any case push for stakes that make something happen. "I convince her that she is wrong" it's not a good stake, because at the end nothing is visibly "happening". It should be "you force her to repent her sin in front of the entire congregation" or something like this (with raises even more dramatic, with screaming, with tearing of hairs, and if you played with the supernatural setting on "high", even special effects like red eyes and sulphur). Think about a movie, what would get the audience's attention. Don't try to be subtle, if there is not enough interest from the players about the subtle thing to make even that dramatic.
very good advice
the player actually told me since then that he had done that exactly because he was fed up with the game
I do get the impression though that he was reacting against what he felt was the game mechanics keeping him from doing what he wanted, rather than the talking per se
Some of this is more about their habits, I think. When people see so many dices, they tend to begin to micro-manage the conflict like a micro-game inside a game. This is completly wrong and can really ruin the game. It's not that people shouldn't "play well" (I really don't like games where you have to forget basic strategy to play...), it's that they should undestand that the best strategy in dogs is really simple, and it's about "knowing how much you can stand to lose to get what you want", and not about micro-manage the number of dices to win the stakes.
It's not enough to tell people this, though. (I always tell it anyway, it can' hurt and it help processing what they see in the game). You should show this in the game. When they begin to micro-manage, you wait for your chance (that could never arrive, if you play with four dogs all together who can always help each other) and hit them with an imparable raise that really hurt them. They have their strategy that will make them win and you are like "OK, but the child die", or "OK, but to go on you have to take 4d10 fallout", or "OK, but your family heirloom is destroyed". This usually shock them from their attention to "win" and force them to decide between taking the raise of give.
When they have decided, and you see that you have not the dices to make another strong raise, just give.
You should totally play to get moments like these. If your dice are not good enough, just give. Even if you could give them some little fallout, who cares? Stay in conflicts only if you can force them to decide AGAINST basic strategy to get something they want in the "story". Only this (coupled with the realization that they can easily win every time) can stop the micro-management of the "game inside a game".
again, good advice :)
I did play agressively, as far as the dice were concernend, usually raising real hard right from the bat
but I guess that story-wise, my raises were probably too weak
the Dogs also had the impression that they were at a disadvantage when in conflict with an NPC
I guess I probably screwed up some important rule somewhere (see below)
This sound really strange to me. This is not how DitV works. (but maybe I simply misunderstood what you wrote)
To be sure, I will write the way conflict works:
1) you set the stakes
2) you roll ONLY the (2) stats and eventual relationship dice, and NO OTHERS. No traits, no material possessions, no helping dice, nothing.
3) then, every time you bring a trait or an object in the narrative of a raise or a see, you can roll its dice (even if you don't use these exact dice in that occasion). You can only roll the dice of a trait or object one time for conflict, but you can roll for how many traits you want (if you can get them in the narration).
So, if you said that you have to choose the traits that go in the conflict at the beginning, you misread the rules.
If instead you are saying that the Dogs have the traits already written on the sheet, and the npc doesn't, this is correct, but remember that the NPCs have a lot less traits (4) and usually a lot less dices than the PC (you did use the proto-NPC rule, right? It's not "optional" at all. It balance the game)
we played it like you say, except we did use some traits straight away, which was a mistake
I also don't get what you say about the Dogs having more and better traits than the NPCs
they seem pretty evenly balanced to me
but the main problem is what you're talking about below : giving kills the raise
Question n°1: Once I’ve escalated to fighting, say by hitting my opponent, can my subsequent raises be talking?
Yes, but remember that a valid raise is "something that your opponent(s) can't ignore", so they have to be words with a weight. (the usual example is "Luke, I am your father" from "The Empire Strikes back". It was after a lightsaber fight, but it was still an hell of a raise...)
If so, what would the fallout be like from those last “just talking” raises?
The fallout always depends on "what happen in the fictional narration", so for example if you say "I am you father" it's d4, but if you raise with "I scream and he jumps for the surprise and fall from the ladder" it's d8, even if you only "talked".
doesn't that gut the escalation mechanic?
I mean, the whole point of escalation, to me, seems to be the fact that once you escalate, thing start to hurt, and you either keep taking the pain or you give
Not at all. He blocked your raise, because giving BLOCK EVERY RAISE, no matter how many dices got pushed . It's the heart of the conflict strategy for the GM. All you have to do in a conflict is having a raise so bad (in a good way) that the players prefere giving up even on a conflict they would win. In this manner you defeat micro-management and force the predominance of the choices in the narrative over the dices.
This is a very, very important rule. And I have seen so many people miss that (and so play a broken game) that I would advice Vincent to put that in a big bold bright red font on every page in the next printings...
yep, that's a biggie, right there
I totally missed that rule
thanks for pointing that out!
Best Wishes for your next DitV game!
thanks, and thanks a bunch for your advice ;)
On 5/22/2007 at 9:10pm, JC wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
They did all that and they don't think they role-played? It sounds to me like they role-played a lot but didn't get out of it what they expected. What do you think "role-playing" means to them? Is it a talking-in-voices, being-the-character thing?
you're absolutely correct about lots of cool things happening in the story (just like I said in my original post)
to them, roleplaying is immersion (it is for me too)
it might not be a very explicit/precise term, but I can't think of a better one
it's about experiencing the feelings your character experiences
that is compatible with Nar, right?
I believe experiencing the dilemma your character faces, and having his choice have a real impact on the scenario is totally possible, but maybe I built this whole thing on this faulty assumption
If so, maybe it's just a matter of pacing. If they're willing to try the game again, give them more time to chat between dice rolling. When they're ready to kick ass and take names, they'll reach for the dice. Push for conflict in the fiction and let the dice come to the forefront when everyone agrees it's time for that.
I read the "dice tactics felt like 'Magic'" comment as a failure for everyone to really connect the dice mechanics to the fiction. Basically, you're doing one thing on the table with the dice, and you're talking about this other thing happening in the story, and people don't really think they're connected enough. Obviously, they're connected in one direction (dice affecting the fiction) but maybe that connection doesn't make sense to them. What's their specific beef with it? Is it that they don't like social-force mechanics (the dice can't make my character / "me" feel a certain way!)?
it's sorta like that
one player said he wanted to roleplay, but the dice got in the way every time
they also don't feel they have enough control over their character (which I don't get, since they can decide what ther raises and sees are)
they feel they have to resort to ludicrous mind-bending word-associations to be able to bring their traits into play, so as to have the conflict go the way they want it to, even when faced with a 10 year old
that last bit is probably due to my bad use of the rules (see previous post)
It might be that they just don't like this sort of game. Maybe they want to get into their characters and "be there," and they aren't interested in all this making-a-point stuff. Don't force it if that's the case.
well, one of the players has actually expressed interest in trying again, so all's not lost, I guess :)
but the other ones are never coming near DITV again if they can help it :/
Maybe give a couple short examples of Actual Play that really worked with these guys -- any game system.
let's see...
I'm currently running a short Delta Green campaign with three of them
we had some good moments in that one so far
most of them are when the characters talk with each other after something happened (like an action scene, or talking to an NPC)
the characters are pretty hostile towards each other, so there's plenty of tension
they also like to describe behaviours that define their characters, even if they're trivial
like, say, biting their nails
another great moment was when the characters cracked under the stress of the situation and ended up shooting some pretty innocent NPC
the accumulation of stressful music, stressful scenes, etc., just made that one scene very real (in a surreal kind of way, if you see what I mean) and very horrifying to all of us
I don't know if that's the type of account you were asking for
I guess what I'm describing is straight Sim, but please correct me if I'm mistaken
What expectations do these players have when they sit down to play Dogs in the Vineyard or The Mountain Witch?
well, mostly, they have what I tell them, which is :
- "this new game I just got is about bad-ass samourai"
- "it's got these cool rules about trust"
- "it's a game that facilitates narrativism" (insert short and mangled attempt at explaining what that means, and assurances that it'll probably be a little weird to begin with, but that it'll be really cool once we get the hang of it)
I actually mean that last part
all these people are enjoying these games, so why not us?
I mean, how hard can it be?
On 5/22/2007 at 9:28pm, Eliarhiman6 wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
JC wrote:
I did play agressively, as far as the dice were concernend, usually raising real hard right from the bat
I have seen that this isn't always the right choice. All you need is ONE big raise, and after the players learn this, keeping some big dice around make them more careful.
Usually I make the very first raises with rather weak dices, keeping all the 10s and 9s in reserve. I accumulate fallout without caring too much about it (it's useful if the Dogs go to shooting but they don't want to kill their opponent. Remember that they have to defeat ALL the dice of fallout, rerolled, to cure a wound) , waiting for the time what they have used all the middle dices. Then, they have to choose between using the big dices (and letting me make my unstoppable raise later) or the little one (risking a reversing of the blow)
This is one the biggest assets of the GM in the resolution conflict in dogs. You don't care a bit about the fallout you get. The players do.
Remember to tie every raise and see with a real, concrete action, that mirror it. If you make a weak raise, make the NPC make a weak point, or shoot with a trembling hand. Be fast, show them how the action and the dices mirror each other without any interrumpion in the game narrative.
but I guess that story-wise, my raises were probably too weak
As I said, there's no need to make EVERY raise a strong one.It would be difficult and tiring. Keep some big dices around for when you get a really nasty idea and make the other raises thinking about what you would like the npc to do.
the Dogs also had the impression that they were at a disadvantage when in conflict with an NPC
This shouldn't be the case. Even a beginning dog should win easily against a single NPC, and the dogs united should be almost unstoppable even by a large mob, barring a lot of bad luck.
I also don't get what you say about the Dogs having more and better traits than the NPCs
See the numbers. A beginning dog gets (in the well-rounded case) 17d6 for stats, 1d4 4d6 2d8 for traits + 1 d6 for the achievement, 4d6 + 2d8 for relationships, + dice for possessions.
A proto-npc gets 11-20 d6 for traits (the medium value is 15), and 4 traits that can go from 1d4 to 2d10, but the medium values is around 1d8 or 1d10, and then rolls 2 times for relationships with a medium value of around 1d10 o 2d6.
So, at first, even a beginning dog has more dices that the normal npc. And how much time a "beginning dog" stay like this? At the first experience fallout he gets, he can change the dice of a d4s trait to d10s. A Dog start with more dice and bigger dice than ne npcs, and grow even more powerful from here.
Dogs can even help each others (and this is their best tactic)
Not only the player characters are more powerful, but they SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT, to play in a more self-assured way and don't worry too much about "losing" or moving around alone withoit the other dogs.
The fallout always depends on "what happen in the fictional narration", so for example if you say "I am you father" it's d4, but if you raise with "I scream and he jumps for the surprise and fall from the ladder" it's d8, even if you only "talked".
doesn't that gut the escalation mechanic?
I mean, the whole point of escalation, to me, seems to be the fact that once you escalate, thing start to hurt, and you either keep taking the pain or you give
If escalating could hurt the one escalating, it would be a self-sacrifice, not an act of force...
And remember what we said before: think about "what happen in the story", the narration. It's not a "description of what the dice say" at all! The description of what happen RULE the dice. The fallout depend on this, and it's a good thing!
And remember that the fact that the player said "I shoot, but not at him, to make him afraid" don't mean that you can't turn the blow with a big dice saying "Mary didn't see that you didn't aim at his husband, and she jumped in front of the gun taking the bullet. You killed her" (remember that in this case, if the dogs give in the conflict, he can still start a follow-up conflict to save mary's life against the usual 4d6 + 4d10, but this mean losing what was at stake in the first conflict. Or they can continue the conflict accepting that Mary die)
On 5/22/2007 at 9:32pm, JC wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
Callan wrote:Except the players (save maybe for one of them) didn’t enjoy the game at all. They said the system kept them from role-playing. They said the dice tactics felt like “Magic” etc. They said too much depended on how well you rolled. They said they were too tempted to min-max their characters.
Perhaps a common pattern in gamers is
A: They think leaving arbitration to the GM rather than dice still leads to unexpected results.
B: They haven't realised that they can often subtely manipulate the GM, thus getting exactly the results they want.
Particuarly with B it's a very comfy zone, apparently full of danger but with a comforting propensity to 'surprisingly' always go the way you wanted it to (unless someone doesn't read someone elses signals right - at which time howls of outrage happen).
You might be stuck - unless a person has realised that and/or gotten sick of it, they'll stay there (or your dealing with a new to roleplay player and they never entered that zone to begin with).
Have any of them expressed any desire to have things happen without just deciding it all? Do they all think they are playing dangerous when it's entirely up to the GM to decide how things pan out?
I think I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure :)
I guess they're in the "confort zone", just going along for the "immersion" ride, most of the time
have any of them expressed any desire to have things happen without just deciding it all?
not really, no
I think I'm actually the only one who is starting to feel the need for my decisions to have an impact on the game
that said, I still often have a great time playing in games where I have the impression of making important decisions, when everything has really been decided beforehand by the person who wrote the scenario
do they all think they are playing dangerous when it's entirely up to the GM to decide how things pan out?
well, they sort of trick themselves into believing it, most of the time
but we sometimes play games where the PCs' decisions really do have an impact
some scenarios we played at the annual parisian ruleless RPG convention come to mind (like the one where we played the people who decided whether to drop the atom-bombs at the end of WWII)
the DG campaign I talk about in my previous post is something else: the plot is pretty much pre-defined, but characters can die at any time if the dice say so
I also adapt the following session depending on the PCs decisions, even if I guess those changes are pretty superficial
On 5/22/2007 at 9:52pm, JC wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
See the numbers. A beginning dog gets (in the well-rounded case) 17d6 for stats, 1d4 4d6 2d8 for traits + 1 d6 for the achievement, 4d6 + 2d8 for relationships, + dice for possessions.
A proto-npc gets 11-20 d6 for traits (the medium value is 15), and 4 traits that can go from 1d4 to 2d10, but the medium values is around 1d8 or 1d10, and then rolls 2 times for relationships with a medium value of around 1d10 o 2d6.
So, at first, even a beginning dog has more dices that the normal npc. And how much time a "beginning dog" stay like this? At the first experience fallout he gets, he can change the dice of a d4s trait to d10s. A Dog start with more dice and bigger dice than ne npcs, and grow even more powerful from here.
Dogs can even help each others (and this is their best tactic)
Not only the player characters are more powerful, but they SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT, to play in a more self-assured way and don't worry too much about "losing" or moving around alone withoit the other dogs.
thanks for taking the time to walk me through the numbers ;)
I see the NPC is a little weaker
but since I can pick usefull traits for the NPCs, when the PCs' traits don't always apply, I'd say a beginning Dog doesn't always have the upper hand
maybe I should go easy when I pick the NPC traits
And remember that the fact that the player said "I shoot, but not at him, to make him afraid" don't mean that you can't turn the blow with a big dice saying "Mary didn't see that you didn't aim at his husband, and she jumped in front of the gun taking the bullet. You killed her" (remember that in this case, if the dogs give in the conflict, he can still start a follow-up conflict to save mary's life against the usual 4d6 + 4d10, but this mean losing what was at stake in the first conflict. Or they can continue the conflict accepting that Mary die)
wouldn't Giving let the Dog's player say something like "OK, you win what's at stake, but that last raise where I shoot Mary never happened"?
On 5/23/2007 at 12:32am, Eliarhiman6 wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
JC wrote:
but since I can pick usefull traits for the NPCs, when the PCs' traits don't always apply, I'd say a beginning Dog doesn't always have the upper hand
maybe I should go easy when I pick the NPC traits
No, don't go "soft" on the players. The game is set in a way that you can't really hurt their character if they don't allow that (and so you must give them good motives to risk), and with objects and helping dices they are already able to win every conflict, if they are ready to pay the cost.
And remember that the fact that the player said "I shoot, but not at him, to make him afraid" don't mean that you can't turn the blow with a big dice saying "Mary didn't see that you didn't aim at his husband, and she jumped in front of the gun taking the bullet. You killed her" (remember that in this case, if the dogs give in the conflict, he can still start a follow-up conflict to save mary's life against the usual 4d6 + 4d10, but this mean losing what was at stake in the first conflict. Or they can continue the conflict accepting that Mary die)
wouldn't Giving let the Dog's player say something like "OK, you win what's at stake, but that last raise where I shoot Mary never happened"?
No, giving can always block a raise from your opponent, but you can't turn the clock and cancel one of your previous raises.
On 5/23/2007 at 12:41am, The Mule wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
Why wouldn't a PC's trait apply?
On 5/23/2007 at 3:00am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
Hi JC,
JC wrote:have any of them expressed any desire to have things happen without just deciding it all?
not really, no
I think I'm actually the only one who is starting to feel the need for my decisions to have an impact on the game
that said, I still often have a great time playing in games where I have the impression of making important decisions, when everything has really been decided beforehand by the person who wrote the scenario
They may be very happy with what they've got, or atleast in a familiar rut. If they are - what will you do if you can't go anywhere new with these guys.
BTW, it's great that you still enjoy having the impression of making important decisions. That's fine - what I particularly like is that you know it's like that, so it's really something you've chosen :)
do they all think they are playing dangerous when it's entirely up to the GM to decide how things pan out?
well, they sort of trick themselves into believing it, most of the time
but we sometimes play games where the PCs' decisions really do have an impact
some scenarios we played at the annual parisian ruleless RPG convention come to mind (like the one where we played the people who decided whether to drop the atom-bombs at the end of WWII)
I think your right - but the actual impact is determined by the GM - he'd narrate out the effects of the bomb drop. With dice - well, can you imagine yes, making the big decision to drop the bomb, but rolling dice and finding one of them detonates early, taking out some innocent island nation that was on the way to the drop point?
If the GM decided that happens, it's quite easy to see it as a second decision after the players made the first decision (to drop the bombs). This is a complete distraction - what's important, the players choice or the GM's? Who knows? Confusion reigns! With dice it's more like a physical connection - like the players made their choice and pulled a 'lever'/rolled to let loose the bombs, but the lever eventually led to this premature detonation. In that case the lever doesn't distract you from there having only been one decision made here, and that was the players. When the GM decides what happens next, it distracts focus from that decision.
Perhaps you could discuss that difference with them and see if someone was already interested, but needed to know that it was there.
the DG campaign I talk about in my previous post is something else: the plot is pretty much pre-defined, but characters can die at any time if the dice say so
It might be good to give a seperate actual play account in another thread, to see if they are interested in death at any time based on a die roll.
On 5/23/2007 at 9:47am, JC wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
wouldn't Giving let the Dog's player say something like "OK, you win what's at stake, but that last raise where I shoot Mary never happened"?
No, giving can always block a raise from your opponent, but you can't turn the clock and cancel one of your previous raises.
OK, I see the difference
so if the Dog gives, Mary still gets shot (that's the Raise), but isn't dead (the Giving Blocked the Raise)
hence the possibility of saving her
the Raise happened, but since it was Blocked, it didn't have "intended" consequences
On 5/23/2007 at 10:06am, JC wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
The wrote:
Why wouldn't a PC's trait apply?
well, I guess some traits just really have nothing to do with the situation at hand
like maybe "bear-hunting" when trying to teach some bad-mannered kids a lesson
you can always bend over backwards to narrate some kind of link, but someone is bound to say "that's kind of weak"
perhaps the trick is to really explain very clearly to the players beforehand that the traits don't just define the character, but will be his way of dealing with conflicts
seems obvious once you've played, but it probably took my players by surprise
On 5/23/2007 at 10:57am, JC wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
They may be very happy with what they've got, or at least in a familiar rut. If they are - what will you do if you can't go anywhere new with these guys.
well, as I said, one of them is interested in trying out new ways to play, so I'm not completely stuck
the others, well, I guess I still enjoy immersion for immersion's sake, so we can still fight Cthulhu together :)
I sure will talk to them in clearer terms about having player choices have a real impact on the story, and I think they'll agree that can't be a bad thing
apart from that, I'll maybe try to find other like-minded gamers to play TMW/DITV/Polaris/etc.
hey, it's an opportunity to meet some new people :)
BTW, it's great that you still enjoy having the impression of making important decisions. That's fine - what I particularly like is that you know it's like that, so it's really something you've chosen :)
I believe my friends think the same way
the players sometimes joke around with the GM after a game, asking him what his back-up plan would have been if the PCs had done this instead of that
the trick is having the illusion be strong enough :)
with these guys, it usually is, because they're good actors, and good at creating gripping situations
but I walked out of a campaign last year, with different players, when the GM started complaining that we wouldn't let him tell the story he wanted to
I think your right - but the actual impact is determined by the GM - he'd narrate out the effects of the bomb drop. With dice - well, can you imagine yes, making the big decision to drop the bomb, but rolling dice and finding one of them detonates early, taking out some innocent island nation that was on the way to the drop point?
If the GM decided that happens, it's quite easy to see it as a second decision after the players made the first decision (to drop the bombs). This is a complete distraction - what's important, the players choice or the GM's? Who knows? Confusion reigns! With dice it's more like a physical connection - like the players made their choice and pulled a 'lever'/rolled to let loose the bombs, but the lever eventually led to this premature detonation. In that case the lever doesn't distract you from there having only been one decision made here, and that was the players. When the GM decides what happens next, it distracts focus from that decision.
interesting points
I guess the confusion you talk about is at the heart of the illusion in our usual games
but in those few games we've played where player decisions really do have an impact, I'd say there's some kind of tacit understanding that the GM would only mess with the consequences of a player's decisions if it allowed him to create a more believable world or a more stressful/dramatic situation
Perhaps you could discuss that difference with them and see if someone was already interested, but needed to know that it was there.
you're right, I'll talk to them about it, but I think I know what they'll say
"we think that sometimes, it's worth it to have the GM make the real decisions, if it makes for a better story"
I don't even think I disagree with that
it's just that I'm starting to feel that this is the case too often
then there's the question of preperation, but I think everyone's already been over that before
It might be good to give a seperate actual play account in another thread, to see if they are interested in death at any time based on a die roll.
well just quickly:
I don't think they'd enjoy the actual PC-death (even though the strong emotion associated with it is kind of a rush), but knowing their PC can die at any moment makes everything more dramatic
we've played four sessions (two scenarios, with one scenario to go) and one PC did die, but he sacrificed himself in order to kill a monster and save the others
there were plenty of die rolls that we all understood could have ended in PC-death though (I use a heads-or-tails rule when a character gets shot while wearing a bullet-proof vest)
On 5/23/2007 at 1:18pm, Eliarhiman6 wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
JC wrote:
so if the Dog gives, Mary still gets shot (that's the Raise), but isn't dead (the Giving Blocked the Raise)
hence the possibility of saving her
the Raise happened, but since it was Blocked, it didn't have "intended" consequences
No, isn't that the reason why Mary can still be saved.
I think I used a confusing example, because I used in the example a "feature" of DitV different from the ones we were talking about, and so I made you think that they were tied. Sorry about that.
The rule about "giving block every raise from your opponent" is just that. It doesn't tell nothing about your past raises. In the example, you raised "I shoot to scare you", your opponent turned the blow with "you hit Mary by mistake and kill her". You can't stop that by giving. It's the end of the round. It's over. You can't modify what just happened.
Now it's the following round. You can continue this conflict, ignoring Mary, or give AND BEGIN ANOTHER CONFLICT TO SAVE HER.
Why should you give to save Mary's life? NOT because "giving" could avoid some consequences from the previous rounds. It doesn't have that power. What happened, happened.
In my example, I used ANOTHER different "feature" of DitV. (and I even made a mistake assigning the dice). Look page 89, "Life and Death". When "you are dead" as a result of a conflict, and NOT by fallout, it's the same as getting a fallout of 4 dice of the appropriate kind (in Mary's case, 4d10) with a 16 as a result. If you get immediate medical attention you can still be saved with a conflict against these 4 dices + demonic influence. In the example, you can choose between continuing the previous conflict, or give Mary immediate medical attention to save her.
Sorry about the confusion, I was showing you another way to force the PC to make difficult choices, but I didn't explain that it was a different method, and not an application of the same one.
On 5/23/2007 at 9:31pm, JC wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
OK, I understand what you're saying
I'm just still a little confused about this part:
The rule about "giving block every raise from your opponent" is just that. It doesn't tell nothing about your past raises. In the example, you raised "I shoot to scare you", your opponent turned the blow with "you hit Mary by mistake and kill her". You can't stop that by giving. It's the end of the round. It's over. You can't modify what just happened.
I read the rules again, and this is how I think it should happen:
turn 1:
- you raise: "I shoot to scare you"
- I Reverse the Blow: "you hit Mary by mistake and kill her"
turn 2:
- my Raise is defined by the fact that I Reversed the Blow in the previous turn, so it's: "you hit Mary by mistake and kill her"
- you Give, so you say something like: "it's just a flesh-wound" or "the bullet was stopped by her silver pendant"
am I missing something again?
On 5/24/2007 at 12:53am, Eliarhiman6 wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
JC wrote:
I read the rules again, and this is how I think it should happen:
turn 1:
- you raise: "I shoot to scare you"
- I Reverse the Blow: "you hit Mary by mistake and kill her"
turn 2:
- my Raise is defined by the fact that I Reversed the Blow in the previous turn, so it's: "you hit Mary by mistake and kill her"
- you Give, so you say something like: "it's just a flesh-wound" or "the bullet was stopped by her silver pendant"
am I missing something again?
I am not sure. Do you think that when you reverse the blow you have to use exactly what you said in the reversing as the next raise? No, you don't need to.
These are three example of how that could go:
Example 1:
turn 1:
- you raise: "I shoot to scare you"
- I Reverse the Blow: "you hit Mary by mistake and kill her"
turn 2:
- my Raise is NOT defined by the fact that I Reversed the Blow in the previous turn, BUT I CAN KEEP THE DIE, so I add another die and say "You shoot Mary?! I will make you pay for this - I shoot you"
- you Give to save Mary, so you say something like: "I drop the gun and go to Mary's side to save her, you can't shoot without hitting her, and anyway you won"
Example 2:
turn 1:
- you raise: "I shoot to scare you"
- I Reverse the Blow: "you hit Mary by mistake"
turn 2:
- my Raise is "...and your bullet kill her"
- you Give, so you say something like: "it's just a flesh-wound" or "the bullet was stopped by her silver pendant"
Example 3:
turn 1:
- you raise: "I shoot to scare you"
- I Reverse the Blow: "you hit Mary by mistake and kill her"
turn 2:
- my Raise is "the sight of Mary's body make you drop the gun"
- you Block, and say "no, I don't care about her, my hand is steady".
If you compare examples 1 and 2, you see that the action is actually the same, but it's "created" in a different way at the system level. What is the "right" way? Both, and none. You decide. "the right way to raise and see" is something that has to be tailored to the group you play with. Some group will be all right with "you hit and you kill" in the same block or raise or returning, other groups would accept it only if you divide "you hit" and "she die" in two different statement.
Another example: I used a "returning the blow" to kill Mary. Some group would let me do it even on a simple block. Other don't. Other would not accept that statement even with a returning the blow.
If you want to know how my group would play it, we would let "you hit her and she die" be said on a returning the blow, but not on a simple block. You could totally block with only "you hit Mary" and say "...and kill her" in the next raise, though.
The game system is the same, but you have to learn which statement are acceptable to your group or not.
On 5/24/2007 at 10:01am, JC wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
OK, that clarifies it, thanks Moreno ;)
would anyone else like to contribute on how Reversing the Blow is handled in their group?
On 5/24/2007 at 12:28pm, Web_Weaver wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
Hi JC,
A small side note, but I think vital. I would strongly advise against discussing GNS theory as a way of describing this game or to manage the players expectations.
If you as the GM play the town in the manner expressed in the book and in this thread then the game speaks for itself. But, if you cloud that with talk of Agenda then the players may never get to the point where they stop looking for the "Narrativist Thing" and enjoy the game.
It is also worth noting that there are many different ways to explore a narrativist agenda and this game is just one approach which focuses in on character and judgement, as such it might make a useful discussion point AFTER a pattern of play has become established, but before would just confuse things and make them think that it is representative of all such games. They may not like Dogs and then decide not to play other games that they may love, purely because of the GNS label.
My advice:
Tell everyone that "my job as the GM is to confront you with difficult choices and situations so that you can explore your character and what it means to be a Dog" and "conflict is all about how far you are prepared to go for the stake".
Jamie
On 5/24/2007 at 1:24pm, oliof wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
You can speed up play considerably if you let strong actions implicitly block raises.
Raise: "He asks you to think of your own sisters and brothers, and how bad it would be to lose them"
See and Raise with "I brush his pithy words away and shoot his kid brother"
would be OK with me. You'd still use separate dice for seeing and raising, but the See doesn't need to be particularily separate from the Raise (that's a trap attack/parry system trained role players like me easily fall into).
On 5/24/2007 at 1:46pm, Eliarhiman6 wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
oliof wrote:
You can speed up play considerably if you let strong actions implicitly block raises.
Raise: "He asks you to think of your own sisters and brothers, and how bad it would be to lose them"
See and Raise with "I brush his pithy words away and shoot his kid brother"
would be OK with me. You'd still use separate dice for seeing and raising, but the See doesn't need to be particularily separate from the Raise (that's a trap attack/parry system trained role players like me easily fall into).
In your example I still see, separated, a block and a raise:
Block: I brush his pithy words away....
Raise: ...and shoot his kid brother
So I see it not so much as a different way of playing, but as a FASTER way of playing (you go from the block to the raise without stopping). I concur that it's a good way to speed up play, and I often use it, but could confuse people still not used to the system.
On 5/24/2007 at 2:04pm, oliof wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
Moreno: Yes, but you don't need to mince your words with a razor just to "fit the structure".
On 5/24/2007 at 5:37pm, JC wrote:
RE: Re: [DITV] Failure
Web_Weaver wrote:
My advice:
Tell everyone that "my job as the GM is to confront you with difficult choices and situations so that you can explore your character and what it means to be a Dog" and "conflict is all about how far you are prepared to go for the stake".
...writing that down...