I got to run my first real session of Dogs on Saturday. I ran Kettle Lake Branch for three of my four players (the other will join for part 2), and we had a really good time with some serious roleplay. One of the things that I found difficult, though, was in providing a significant challenge to the Dogs when they team up.

For example, one of the Dogs, Brother Isaiah, spoke with Sister Judith about her feeling about her sister and Br. Makepeace during morning chores. The conversation left Sr. Judith quite upset. As the Dogs were assembling for breakfast with the Steward, Sister Judith tore off on a horse with her rifle in hand, heading towards town.

Now, the three Dogs all leaped into action. Now I was picturing a cinematic horse-chase scene and was looking forward to playing with the timing of the raises and sees. However, with three on one, and me with a low best-roll, we didn't have the opportunity to go back and forth more than once (each character having a "go"). In fact, by the time it was Sr. Judith's go, Brother Simon was beside her and Brother Zedekiah pulling ahead of her.

So I had her escalate, and sobbing, turned her rifle (albeit awkwardly) to her temple. Brother Simon leapt from his horse and knocked the gun away. She had accumulated so much fallout just seeing the Brothers' raises that she was doomed. But I didn't want to give before each Dog had a chance to do something.

So I said that her spirit was broken. That gave Brother Isaiah a chance to call her back, returning life to someone as he did during his initiation. It was really quite moving, and the story flowed well. We ended the session soon thereafter, with the Dogs gathered in a clearing in silent prayer and reflection, seeking solutions to the situation.

Some things I want to remember to do, next time:

• play up the Steward's pride/insecurity about his stewardship of his own family
• get some more involvement/resentment from the Smith clan
• may make the fourth player a relative of a key character

I'm wondering, though, how to keep a conflict going in such a way that allows a few more rounds, by which I mean opportunities for narration by players and GM. I welcome your input. TIA,

--Geoff in Vermont

Halfred wrote: ...me with a low best-roll,

That was not the ONLY problem...

This, too, is a big problem:

Now I was picturing a cinematic horse-chase scene and was looking forward to playing with the timing of the raises and sees

I'm wondering, though, how to keep a conflict going in such a way that allows a few more rounds

Thanks for the replies. And good points, both. We did have a good time. The game was intense and and we did go with the flow. "Say yes or roll the dice" was very much in play. In fact, I checked in a couple times with the players because we roleplaying scene after scene and weren't having conflicts. But everyone thought things were going great. So maybe if it ain't broke, don't fix it? Or maybe I should be pushing something harder?

Moreno, are you suggesting that the choice to do something like the time-shifting examples in the book (shooting a coin, tracking a criminal) should be made after assessing how the dice have rolled? How do you set the stakes that relate to the conflict, then? I'm not sure quite how I would do that, but then I've got all of one game under my belt.

Thanks for the advice. Must contemplate...

--Geoff

I agree that avoiding the temptation to play before you play is a good rule of thumb in Dogs. But, I too, tend to bring lots of expectations to the game regardless. Oh well.

My point was, and I was being glib, that if you roll low in a multi-Dog conflict, you're going to be bleeding dice quick as you see all their Goes. You should know that the chase scene is not going to be the long drawn out thing you expected at that point. If you rolled highest, you could have hit them with Goes that they all had to answer and had the protracted conflict you were wanting. But this story didn't go that way.

So, then you roll with that and maybe you Give, setting up a follow up conflict where you have a nice advantage. Or maybe you see their raises with your low dice, soaking up lots of fallout and then hitting them once or twice with your big guns just to push on their characters a bit. Maybe the big scene is when they have to deal with her broken leg from that 12 points of D6 fallout she took falling off her horse. Maybe you set up follow up conflict where the opponent isn't the girl at all, but the general demonic influence in Town. spooky.

Oh, and don't forget those free relationship diceys...

Halfred wrote:
Moreno, are you suggesting that the choice to do something like the time-shifting examples in the book (shooting a coin, tracking a criminal) should be made after assessing how the dice have rolled? How do you set the stakes that relate to the conflict, then? I'm not sure quite how I would do that, but then I've got all of one game under my belt.

Moreno wrote:
You simply don't do this in DitV: NEVER picture "what will happen". It will ruin your fun, and probably the player's fun too.

Roll with the dice and the narration. Be happy to be surprised, and surprise the other player, too.  Catch the moment for a good raise or see, without trying to force the conflict in a specific direction. This will make for a more intense, dramatic and fun session that any "cinematic horse-chase".

I have only had the chance to run Dogs once but have had the same problem with three Dogs beating the crap out of a challenge. When it came to talking it usually made sense for one person to be the lead and the others to stand by or only give a die of help but fighting and gunfighting conflicts were an issue. The example in the book of more than one person on a side was a team of 3 versus a team of 2, only 50% bigger. Conflicts with a team 200% bigger, 3 versus 1, became too easy even when the 1 was possessed and had demonic influence and a fairly decent baby on her side (+1d6 for the baby, which I find hilarious). We still had a good time but there wasn't much tension in the 3 on 1 battles.

I can't think of any mechanical way to balance this besides adding 1 to the "seeing" dice for every opponent above one. I do think 3 on 1 conflicts need to be balanced.

A fairly brief search on this site will reveal threads which speak to how to hammer Dogs that, otherwise, are rolling every Trait every conflict and facing little opposition to their will (mechanically).

I am posting, then, to make a brief comment on this:

KuroFluff wrote: I do think 3 on 1 conflicts need to be balanced.

My 2 cents worth:

1. DitV isn't really about game balance.

2. One sorcerer is just not going to last very long against three Dogs in a straight up gunfight.

Look for giveable conflicts, push for small stakes, make the Dogs have to think if they really want to do this thing, get them shooting each other; If all three of their guns come out pointed at you the dying is going to start. At that point, use your big demon dice with goes that hit all of them simultaneously (She speaks and a male voice reverberates in your head, driving you all to the ground!) Use lots of small dice to soak up attacks, taking massive fallout but bleeding their big dice so you can get some shots in. It won't last long, so make em count.

I did find mention of the multiple opponents tactic on the forum but they would have only helped a little in the situations I faced/made my players face. Certainly I'm realizing some of it is due to my inexperience with GMing this system. The morality of my one-shot plot was pretty one-sided, with the Dogs always in agreement on how to counsel/bitchslap the NPCs. The two encounters which caused problems were: 1) lone sniper, influenced by demons, trying to take out one of the Dogs mistaking them for the mayor/steward who wears his old Dogs coat on the job. They took down the gunman very quickly and then tended to his wounds. 2) A possessed woman with a baby that the Dogs handled with talking/ceremony and physical only, even though the woman was clawing at them and threatening the 1d6 baby.

I suppose it may take a while before I really get a good grasp on the moral ambiguity that makes Ditv work best but at least for now I wish I could better mechanically balance 1 vs n (where n is greater than 1) conflicts. Simply the fact that it has come up several times in different topics indicates the frequency of this problem.

What if Demonic Influence was applied for EACH Dog? So if they'll all seen the worst of it, that's 5d10 per Dog... So 15d10 total.

That'd be a nice balancing effect.

Dang, thats like a great idea. Anybody who wants to, please play with that rule, let me know how it goes.

-Vincent

VERY interesting rule, pin. I'd note, though, that it's not so much what the Dogs have seen as what the players THINK the Dogs have seen. One player's demonic influence is another player's coincidence or natural phenomenon. IIRC.

Nope! The GM's the one making that call. Sometimes when I've GMed, I'm like "...and I'm rolling 5d10 because you've seen murder." Players: "we have? But ... really? Wait, that means that little Zeb's death WASN'T an accident! Holy craps!" Me: "bingo."

-Vincent

I feel like demons should be smarter than to get into fights with three of God's watchdogs united in their purpose...and if they aren't smarter than that, I'm not sure I see a problem with them getting a massive thrashing.

Well, the demons may be smart, but me as the GM isn't always so bright. In the moment of play I'll often be less smart than a demon.

Well, you know what they say...you go to war with the GM you gots...

lumpley wrote: Nope! The GM's the one making that call.