Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Darren Hill, July 23, 2005, 05:34:03 AM
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on July 27, 2005, 07:50:15 AMHandling NPCs: named NPCs work exactly like PCs in all things. I personally don't use a full stat block for them, but in principle there's no difference. Contrary to what people seem to get from the text, there is no rule about the Devil having to appear before the character dies -
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on July 27, 2005, 07:50:15 AM
QuotePlayers and NPCs with devils can't be killed unless they have a stat at 0, and they enter a contest using that stat, and they don't fold.
QuoteUnnamed NPCs with no stats are just furniture - they can drop like flies.
QuoteNPCs with stats but no devils - what about them?
QuoteFirst, imagine that a player can suffer some consequence to his character that basically ruins that destroys the player's vision of that character, makes it an unfun character. For example, it might be that if Jim seduces Helen, the character will be ruined for some reason unknown to Jim and the GM.
QuoteSecond, If a conflict has as stakes: "you die," that stake can't come about, it can only appear to - unless the 0 stat situation applies.
QuoteThird, If a conflict has as stakes: "some fate which will make your character unplayable, but you don't die", then the only protection is to fold. Which might lead to a continued fold-fest as you continue to dodge the issue or run out of chips.
QuoteNow, Eero's post also suggests a solution to this - that the stakes of the conflict be agreed by all participants before it begins. Is this the way it should be played?
QuoteAgain, I think the next edition of the text should have something about this if this is the case.
Quote from: Matt Snyder on July 29, 2005, 11:16:18 AMHi, Darren, sorry for the delay in responding. Ok, here goes . . .
QuoteQuoteNPCs with stats but no devils - what about them?Yes, indeed. Who are they? NPCs either are "named" and have Devils, or they are unnamed an drop like flies. There is no reason to "stat up" a character (even one who has a colorful name like Doc) unless there is a Devil associated with the character.
QuoteQuoteFirst, imagine that a player can suffer some consequence to his character that basically ruins that destroys the player's vision of that character, makes it an unfun character. For example, it might be that if Jim seduces Helen, the character will be ruined for some reason unknown to Jim and the GM.My response here is fairly blunt, but I'm hopeful you'll come to some common ground with me.
QuoteBut, let me also inquire, because I don't get understand the "make your character unplayable" line. I can't imagine a situation where the character is "unplayable" but not dead. Can you explain?
QuoteYou must have reasons to like and dislike your character (or at least view his Devil as something immoral or distasteful). That dislike should be part of the game's ultimate choice.
QuoteQuoteNow, Eero's post also suggests a solution to this - that the stakes of the conflict be agreed by all participants before it begins. Is this the way it should be played?Certainly. I'm confused why you'd assume otherwise. Can you tell me how you came to that? (Maybe your next comment <snip> is a hint.) More importantly, can I help explain it more?
QuoteThe current edition does have something, but it's probably not sufficient. When and if I get around to revising Dust Devils, I will have to better explain conflict and stakes.
QuoteFor what IS there now, see the sidebar "What is conflict?" I'm thinking of these sentences particularly: " A conflict is any risky situation in which characters have something to lose while trying to meet their goals." and " All kinds of results are possible as character’s deal with conflict."
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on July 29, 2005, 04:21:06 PMLet me tell you how I explain the initiation of conflict:Conflicts in Dust Devils are situations where the participants are ready and willing to do violence, AND they're conflicts in the theoretical sense, too. (Violence here is just a technical term and means Harm, the lowering of attributes.) So Dust Devils conflicts are a special case of the general term. We have three situations:Neither side is willing to do violence: One side is willing to do violence: Both sides are willing to resort to violence: --
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on July 29, 2005, 04:21:06 PMThis system is very elegant and powerful. It allows you to do stuff like just standing there and getting beat up, breaking bones and losing teeth, without losing any mechanical provess. Then, when the bad guys threaten your loved ones, you can stand up and put the bastards down, without losing any tactical advantage over preparing a trigger-happy ambush.
QuoteMy suggestion is that if the players are such pussies that they have trouble with western, they should adapt the game to some other genre.
QuoteAgree on the lines and veils of the game beforehand, instead of in the middle of the game.
QuoteThe folding rules offer enough protection in all practical situations for the other party to avoid the unthinkable conflict long enough to get rid of the offender, especially when used in a clever manner. Just take castrating the bastard as your goal, and fold long enough to get that royal flush. Gather stakes from other conflicts to stay flush. Sooner or later you'll get the fucker.