*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 05, 2021, 05:33:53 AM

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: 76 - most online ever: 565 (October 17, 2020, 02:08:06 PM)
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: DitV - Items and traits  (Read 4877 times)
museleading
Member

Posts: 36


« on: September 06, 2006, 01:24:17 PM »

A conflict was raise in the last game around whether to stay at my chr's (Greg) parents house or not.  Greg's parents have no love for him, so he was keen to stay elsewhere, while the other two chrs wanted to find out what Greg's parents were like and the family orintated one didn't understand 'not wantting to stay with family'.

So we raise a conflict.  One of Greg's items is a 1d6 Dog's coat (representing the fact that the community couldn't be bothered making something nice).  During the conflict one of the other players wanted to raise with Greg's coat, pointing out there were obviously something to discuss with the parents or the coat would be better.  I let him cause it was an argument that made sense for his chr.  Now the questions come.  As he had called on Greg's coat, was it still available (systemwise) for Greg to call on?

My opinion is no, cause from a story POV, how can you defend using an item which has been used to attack you with?

Then comes the next q.  Greg and the other dogs get to know each other well, Greg sees that Carson is an "all round nice guy".  Should Greg and Carson have an argument, from a story POV Greg will use the fact that Carson is "an all round nice guy" against him, rub his nose in the fact that becuase of this, he gets used and abused.  So now I am pulling a trait off another player's sheet and using it against him.  I'm a little uncomftable with the idea of then saying I have used that trait (systemwise), therefore it has been used up.

Anyone else encountered this?  Come up with ideas around the situation?
Logged
cdr
Member

Posts: 93


« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2006, 03:11:09 PM »

My opinion: Using traits from other character's sheets is definitely wrong.  But you could certainly take a trait of your own like "Brother Carson is a nice guy 1d4" or 1d6 or whatever, using fallout or experience.  Or take a relationship with Brother Carson.  I'm a big fan of getting into arguments with your fellow dogs and building up those 1d4 relationships, because I find it very interesting to see "Well you shoot me for saying this?  How about This?  Even THIS?"

As to whether it's OK to use belongings off other player's sheets as improvised items for yourself, I'd go with whatever the most discerning player at the table is comfortable with.  I'd still allow the item's owner to use it himself, unless the group felt it was better not to.

And that's a great conflict, by the way.

--Carl
Logged
Andrew Cooper
Member

Posts: 724


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2006, 06:03:36 AM »

Okay, take this with a grain of salt until Vincent chimes in on the issue but here's my take...

I would say you could use the coat as an improvised item just like if you were in a fight and you used an item that had been described as lying around.  You would simply assign the Coat some dice based on whether it was normal, excellent, big or crap.  Just like anything else.  Now, if Greg had through the course of the game increased his Coat's dice and it was at 2d8 or something, he'd get to use those dice against you whereas you'd only get the dice for it being normal, excellent, big or crap.  After all, the Coat obviously means more to Greg than it does to you.

Also, there's no rule that says that two players can't use the same item against each other in a conflict.  I can grab a 1d6 Shovel and swing it at you.  You can then Block, narrate taking the Shovel away and then use the 1d6 Shovel against me.  Using the Coat in the argument is no different.  Here's how I'd see if going down in play...

Carson: Look at your coat, Brother.  Obviously there are issues that need to be addressed here.  (rolls 1d6 for Coat as improvised item)
Greg:  Yeah!  Look at my coat.  They didn't care enough to make something decent before.  I don't care enough to spend a night under their roof!  (rolls 1d6 for Coat)
Logged

lumpley
Administrator
Member
*
Posts: 3453


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2006, 10:14:51 AM »

Yep. Other characters' stuff, you can roll as improvised stuff. Other characters' traits, you can't roll.

-Vincent
Logged
museleading
Member

Posts: 36


« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2006, 08:18:54 PM »

Okay, take this with a grain of salt until Vincent chimes in on the issue but here's my take...

I would say you could use the coat as an improvised item just like if you were in a fight and you used an item that had been described as lying around.† You would simply assign the Coat some dice based on whether it was normal, excellent, big or crap.† Just like anything else.† Now, if Greg had through the course of the game increased his Coat's dice and it was at 2d8 or something, he'd get to use those dice against you whereas you'd only get the dice for it being normal, excellent, big or crap.† After all, the Coat obviously means more to Greg than it does to you.

Also, there's no rule that says that two players can't use the same item against each other in a conflict.† I can grab a 1d6 Shovel and swing it at you.† You can then Block, narrate taking the Shovel away and then use the 1d6 Shovel against me.† Using the Coat in the argument is no different.† Here's how I'd see if going down in play...

Carson: Look at your coat, Brother.† Obviously there are issues that need to be addressed here.† (rolls 1d6 for Coat as improvised item)
Greg:† Yeah!† Look at my coat.† They didn't care enough to make something decent before.† I don't care enough to spend a night under their roof!† (rolls 1d6 for Coat)


I like what you say about taking the item away and re-using it.  I can see how that works.

In my head I can see the converstation running with traits too:

Carson: Look at you, Brother.  That time you tried to help the little girl across the road and she pushed you infront of the horse and then stole your wallet, how can you can being a nice guy is a good thing?.  (rolls ? for trait as ?)
Greg:  Yeah!  Look at that girl.  I caught up with her later and gave her a permantment roof over her head.  That was all she really wanted, not punishment.  She saw the error of her ways (rolls ? for trait "all round nice guy")

I'm not sure how to say yes to one without saying yes to another.
Logged
museleading
Member

Posts: 36


« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2006, 08:24:07 PM »

Yep. Other characters' stuff, you can roll as improvised stuff. Other characters' traits, you can't roll.

-Vincent

Ok, I respect your position of authority as the creator of the game.  But I would like to understand where you are coming from on this on so I can extrapolate later on.

Iím not sure I see how the rule changes in each circumstance.
Logged
Taltos
Member

Posts: 22


« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2006, 11:50:39 PM »

I'd say that the difference is that "stuff" is tangible - you pick it up and use, or directly indicate.

Traits are... ambiguous? They are innate to the person and not something to hold up and say "here! here is this core element of 'you' that I am choosing to use. You can reference events that may have fed an opponents traits as part of your argument, but that argument/action has to come out of your own dice to frame it with your traits.
Logged

Warren
Member

Posts: 167


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2006, 03:44:36 AM »

Carson: Look at you, Brother.  That time you tried to help the little girl across the road and she pushed you infront of the horse and then stole your wallet, how can you can being a nice guy is a good thing?.  (rolls ? for trait as ?)
Greg:  Yeah!  Look at that girl.  I caught up with her later and gave her a permantment roof over her head.  That was all she really wanted, not punishment.  She saw the error of her ways (rolls ? for trait "all round nice guy")
My take on this is that if Carson had a trait like "Sees the flaws in others", or "Nice guys come last", or even "Greg is stupid" then he could well roll that in with that Raise. You can't use other peoples traits; there is no "personal passion" (for want of a better term) behind them.
Logged
ffilz
Member

Posts: 468


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2006, 07:50:03 AM »

The personal passion is definitely the key.

Most objects are rated based on purely functional terms (though a "lovingly made coat 1d8" does include personal attachment, and the coat might only be 1d6 for someone else).

Consider also traits that are effectively skills, how could someone else roll them?

My thought - if you want to pull on the strings of another character's traits, create a relationship with that character based on the trait. As long as that character is part of the stakes (a participant in the conflict, or otherwise directly at stake), you can then roll that newly created relationship.

In one sense, ultimately it comes down to "that's the way the rules work." And the rules are there to support the right degree of tension that allows premise to be addressed. If you start to game the rules (like what happened in my last couple play sessions), the game collapses.

Frank
Logged

Frank Filz
Vaxalon
Member

Posts: 1619


« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2006, 09:18:17 AM »

Creating a relationship is a great way to pull in a trait without pulling in a trait.

"Brother Jessup gets on my nerves because he's such a high-and-mighty so-and-so.  He needs to be taken down a peg, 2d8" is a bitchin' relationship.
Logged

"In our game the other night, Joshua's character came in as an improvised thing, but he was crap so he only contributed a d4!"
                                     --Vincent Baker
museleading
Member

Posts: 36


« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2006, 08:55:23 PM »

I can see that creating a relationship with another PC is a good way to raise conflict between them. "So and so needs to be taken down a peg" is a great relationship to use, I am concerned that using it alone will turn all conflicts into the same conflict - as you are calling on the same reason each time.

What I see is that any trait a Dog has can (taken out to its extremeity) by used against them.  In an argument, if the chrs know each other well I see that as a possible raise used by any of the chrs.  I don't see how creating a relationship with them narrowly defines down to 'I can use the fact they are a 'all round nice guy' against them', or any of their other traits.
Logged
Moreno R.
Member

Posts: 389


« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2006, 10:28:22 PM »

In my opinion, you can USE only something you HAVE or something you KNOW

You have traits, relationships, objects to use. You can use an object that isn't in your hands, if you find a way. But how can you use a trait of another character? How can you know that Bill has a 4d10 trait "I like cigars" to accuse him be the the one who stole your cigars?

But, let's imagine that you know Bill. You saw him do anything for a cigar. This is a FACT that you KNOW.

In DitV rules, in my opinion, that is an object.

So, it could give you 1d6, as a object you use. (or a d4 if it's something only tangentially usable, or 2d8 if it's a big fucking fact that really matter in the conflict)

This is as I would play it. "traits" are immaterial, they are game construct. The characters don't know them. They do know FACTS, insteads.

Logged

Ciao,
Moreno.

(Excuse my errors, English is not my native language. I'm Italian.)
Warren
Member

Posts: 167


WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 10, 2006, 05:03:54 AM »

Personally, I wouldn't do things that way. If Bill took the trait "I like cigars, 4d10" and you were really annoyed about that, you should take a relationship with Bill or a trait like "I know Bill would do anything for a cigar, 1d10" or something. 'Cos you all made your characters together as a group, right?

If that kind of thing happens during play, then that's what Fallout is for, isn't it? You have a conflict with Bill, and during that conflict you see him show his love of cigars. You could totally take a fallout trait like "I know Bill would do anything for a cigar, 1d4", and use it in a later conflict with him. The fact you have learnt -- and the fact that you care so much about it -- is codified in the game engine as Fallout.

Logged
jlarke
Member

Posts: 19

Grump


« Reply #13 on: September 10, 2006, 12:45:02 PM »

I can see that creating a relationship with another PC is a good way to raise conflict between them. "So and so needs to be taken down a peg" is a great relationship to use, I am concerned that using it alone will turn all conflicts into the same conflict - as you are calling on the same reason each time.

If I recall correctly, the rules say that you can call upon a relationship when the entity with which you have the relationship when you're in conflict with that entity or when your relationship with the entity is at stake. I wouldn't want to use more detailed relationships to limit that. I think that if you start saying, "Oh, you can't use 'Phil needs to be taken down a peg' in this conflict because you're not taking him down a peg," you're encouraging people to write things like "Phil 1d8" instead. I'm comfortable with the idea that at the system level, all that matters is the name and the dice, and the details of the relationship are there for color and to provide clues for the GM.
Logged

My real name is Jason Larke.
Tindalos
Member

Posts: 23


« Reply #14 on: September 11, 2006, 12:55:15 PM »

Reminds me of an exchange between a Dog and a wife of one of the townsfolk. 

Sr. Miriam, the Dog, took off her coat and raised with, "I'm not here as a dog, I'm here as a woman speaking to another woman."

The wife grabbed the coat and thrust it at her with the reverse, "I don't need a woman, I need a DOG!"

I sure did grab those big excellent coat dice to use and the players thought it was fanstatic!


Logged
Pages: [1]
Print
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!