Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Hans, June 02, 2006, 04:05:24 PM
Quote from: Hans on June 02, 2006, 04:05:24 PM* Multiple people in the same conflict: Almost from the very start there were several conflicts in which multiple people (both players and/or characters) were involved. I am still not certain how these should be dealth with, but I will state here how I dealt with them and let others tell me what I did wrong:
Quote- Once the Call had occurred, I organized the hands, as best I could, into a hierarchy of opposition. That is, I figured as best I could who was opposing whom in the conflict, and matched those hands up. As an example; there is a conflict involving the Mayor, Mr. Compton the Schoolteacher, and Maddie the Soiled Dove. As their goal in the conflict they have the following: The Mayor wants Maddie to go back to the Parlour House and stop making such a big scene. Maddie wants the Mayor to submit to her whims. The Schoolteacher wants to make the Mayor look bad in the eyes of the other people in the restaurant. After the hands are drawn, I interpret that both the goals of the Schoolteacher and Maddie aren't conflicting with each other; they can easily both get their way. It is really a two on one situation, so both of their hands are matched up against the Mayor's, with the possiblity that one or both could win/lose apart from each other. Note that the Mayor's goal doesn't DIRECTLY conflict with the Schoolteacher's, but I still ruled that they were in conflict because the Mayor wouldn't want the Schoolteacher to succeed.
QuoteI can see how, in the above example, I could have played it as two separate conflicts (Mayor vs. Schoolteacher, Mayor vs. Maddie), but that seemed to be an unecessary slow down to the game. This is only one example...I would say the number of conflicts in the game that involved more than just two people was more than half.
Quote* I found that in many of the conflicts, people seemed to have a LOT of cards. In a fight between two characters, near the end, each character would routinely have 8-10 cards, with knack draws of 3-4. We hit at least two flushes during the night (WOW, what a deadly hand), and I hit, as the dealer, four Aces TWICE! Is this normal in other player's experience?
QuoteOne thing that seemed to work very well for us last night was that when a person had narration rights, that person would often still give other players a chance to contribute stuff, especially dialogue. For example, Maddie's player has lost her conflict to kill Father Donny with her derringer, and I have narration rights. I describe Maddie as whipping out the derringer, pointing it at Donny, and then say "And, just before she wildly opens fire, she says..." and point to Maddie's player to supply the dialogue. In one other situation, somebody said during the course of dealing the cards something like "Wow, do I have an idea for how my character could lose this". When the Call came, and that player's character did lose, but that player did not get narration rights, the person who did asked "You said you had an idea, tell me what it was..." and ended up going with it, because it was frankly brilliant.
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on June 03, 2006, 07:50:59 AM- Every conflict in DD is, by definition, violent in some manner. Therefore conflict will only occur when characters are ready and willing to act violently. This is purposeful, and very much the soul of the system, even more so than the popular Devil mechanics.
QuoteWell, I don't think doing it your way hurts anything at this point, except that it gives the Dealer authority that does not properly belong to him. Dust Devils is a rare rpg in that it has a genuinely "powerless" GM, with little in the way of organizatory and interpretative authority. You overstep that philosophy by barging into the conflict and deciding who can damage whom on your own, but if that works for your group, then it's probably good.
QuoteThe more the merrier, the varying number of parties in conflicts is an important pacing mechanic: if there's, say, five parties in a conflict, that all but ensures that the narrator will have the means to shoot any particular enemies of his full of holes! I don't recommend splitting into smaller conflicts if conflicts are connected by both time and place; if it happens in the same room at the same time, then it's part of the same conflict, I say.
QuoteFlushes are a killer, allright. What I like to do with them is to threaten other players with my flush, and see them pay for the privilege of escaping. Especially fun if you don't actually have the flush.
Quote from: Hans on June 05, 2006, 09:38:32 AMQuote from: Eero Tuovinen on June 03, 2006, 07:50:59 AM- Every conflict in DD is, by definition, violent in some manner. Therefore conflict will only occur when characters are ready and willing to act violently. This is purposeful, and very much the soul of the system, even more so than the popular Devil mechanics.This is a good thing to remember. We got into a few conflicts that, frankly, we SHOULDN'T have. They were simply not important enought to warrant the possible difficulty that would result from them. I think this was based on my coming off of PTA, where a conflict finishes almost every scene, but of course, in PTA, nothing really bad happens if you FAIL in a conflict, unlike Dust Devils.
QuoteI don't think any of us ever really thought about who determines difficulty...that's interesting. What you are saying is that if I have narration rights, and there are multiple people in the conflict, I could conceivably have a winning hand deal difficulty to someone who was not directly opposed to the person with that hand? In theory, I think this sounds interesting, but in practice I think I would want to have some guidelines to cover it. In our game, I don't think it ever made much difference, as while we had sometimes had a lot of people in a conflict, it was usually pretty clear to everyone at the table who should feel the pain. This issue of multiple person conflicts seems like territory ripe for some extra text in the 2nd edition of the rules. However, I get what your saying, which is that regardless, it is the Narrator, not the dealer, who should resolve ALL issues associated with the outcome of the conflict. The Narrator really is the "GM" for that moment. Makes sense.
QuoteIt sounds like what your saying is that, if there are 5 people in a conflict (and thus 5 hands), four of those hands should definitely deal difficulty. In fact, conceivably all five, according to the "narrator can have losing hands deal difficulty" bit in the rules. Thats a lot of difficulty flying around.
QuoteIt brings up another question though...my assumption is that while the Narrator has the rights to resolve conflicts, it is the Dealer who has the authority to organize conflicts and determine their participants. That is, if there are five people in the scene, it is the Dealer who decides whether there are going to be several separate conflicts (one on one, two on one, two on two, etc.) or one monster conflict that resolves everything. Is this true? Or am I giving the Dealer too much power?
QuoteI have pragmatic concerns with the idea of two or more hands dealing difficulty to one charcter in the same conflict, simply because it could mean a premature end to a character. One conflict 10 minutes into the game session and you could have a character moments away from leaving the game. While it might be dramatic, having your character out of the game 15 minutes into a 4 hour game session doesn't really classify as fun.
QuoteQuoteFlushes are a killer, allright. What I like to do with them is to threaten other players with my flush, and see them pay for the privilege of escaping. Especially fun if you don't actually have the flush.I assume what you mean here is "table talk" and a really bad poker face on your part, as in things like "Are you sure you don't want to fold? Really? These five clubs I have in my hand here are telling you you ought to fold, I think."
Quote from: Hans on June 05, 2006, 03:43:39 PMEven more good advice from the Guru of the North! Thank you, Eero. I'm going to process all this and take it to heart for the next session.
QuoteHowever, there is a bit of dichotomy on the board here regarding advice to new Dust Devil players. One stream of advice seems to say push hard to have conflicts happening all the time, but another seems to embody the above advice. I suspect it is one of those things that only SEEMS paradoxical, until you have actually gotten into the groove and felt the zen balance of the thing in practice.