Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 08, 2022, 10:53:52 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 156 - most online ever: 565 (October 17, 2020, 02:08:06 PM)
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: [DitV] PCs entering in an on-going coonflict?  (Read 6640 times)
William Burke

Posts: 9

« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2005, 09:10:23 PM »

I strongly dislike conflicts (or stakes) that restrict escalation in future conflicts.  So I generally suggest against them.

Fair enough. Conflicts over whether we're going to escalate in the future do run the danger of removing the "do we escalate?" tension that gives Dogs its power.  (I don't know whether this is why you dislike them, but this is my biggest qualm about them.)

The problem I have with your proposed solution is that it robs the first conflict of actual significance, since you're Giving for reasons not related to the conflict or the characters involved, but for mechanical concerns.  If I were the first player, I'd be awfully frustrated -- obviously, I was interested enough in the confession to escalate for it, and saying "okay, you win so that we can move on to the second, apparently more important conflict" would make me feel deprotagonized.

In this situation, "Do we use violence in the follow-up conflict?" is the only way I could see this handled where I wouldn't be upset if I were one of these players.  The conflict system is the only thing in Dogs that has the power to prevent escalation, so it's the only place you can go to find a solution for this problem.  If a player really objects to a conflict that restricts his escalation, he can say so when the stakes are proposed -- and if I were the GM, I'd probably veto any stakes that affected escalation for longer than the duration of the follow-up conflict.

now in open playtesting: dog eat dog

Posts: 165

« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2005, 05:44:14 AM »


I'm sorry for how brief my previous reply was, but you have a very firm grasp on my reasoning.

That being said, I'm not sure how this solution you present offers any significant difference apart from mechanically forcing the first player to give rather than allowing him that option and allowing him to decide.  In your scenario, the following conflict (Can I have this NPC confess his crimes?) is still made the lesser of the two, and the player would be giving for mechanical concerns, not reasons related to the conflict or characters involved.  However, I can see how the initial conflict (Do we use violence in the following conflict?) could be a potentially interesting one.

So, again, I strongly dislike stakes that restrict future escalations and I discourage them, but I'll agree that, given no other possible options, they may be necessary.

Simon Kamber

Posts: 175

« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2005, 08:12:52 AM »

That being said, I'm not sure how this solution you present offers any significant difference apart from mechanically forcing the first player to give rather than allowing him that option and allowing him to decide.

Because the first conflict, if the stakes concern the use of violence, means that the conflict continues until one side gives "naturally". The story result is the same, but it seems more natural to give, and then resort to violence because you lost the stakes, rather than having to give anyway when you escalate because your fellow dog wants in.

And as far as I can see, in order to support the other dog's wish to enter when the conflict develops to violence, the conflict ends when someone escalates anyway. The only difference is that when the fight starting was the stakes, it ends naturally.

(Also, if the stakes were "do I get him to confess", and the opposition escalated right away, wouldn't that force the dog to give?)

Simon Kamber
Posts: 3453

« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2005, 10:05:13 AM »


Everybody, read and understand these threads (especially my answers in them) before you continue here:
Joining a conflict already in progress.
[DitV] Re-entering a conflict or entering late.
Questions about conflicts in Dogs
Conflict Question
Misclleanous DitV questions.

If there's still any need for discussion, I'll be surprised.

Arturo G.

Posts: 333

« Reply #19 on: December 24, 2005, 04:38:00 AM »

It seems I arose the typical old question that is appering in the forum from time to time. I will try to do my homework better next time.

It's clear we need to get used to new freedom in timing the conflicts and improve in setting the stakes and stay with them. But this is a fascinating thing to explore.

Thanks for the links, Vincent!

Pages: 1 [2]
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!