[DitV] To the bitter end?

[John Adams]

I'm re-reading the rules and hoping I can put a group of Dogs together to run my first full game. I ran into a confusing point. (This is hypothetical, I haven't run into it in actual play yet.)

Let's say you have 3 Dogs on the same side of a minor conflict against an NPC. The GM plays maybe one raise and see then Gives. The 3 players have plenty of dice left. Who narrates the result of the conflict? Do the players keep grinding the conflict until only one remains? Who would they Raise against? Each other?

The Rules seem pretty clear that you play a conflict till only one person remains, but the sensible thing to do would be to stop when the opposition is defeated or Gives. But then who would narrate?

If I'm missing something obvious I'd appreciate a page reference.

[lumpley]

Hey John.

Dogs never specifies who narrates. It specifies who gets the resolution of the stakes - that is, it specifies which way the stakes resolve - but anybody can talk at any time.

So: if the three Dogs agree to how the stakes resolve, anybody can narrate. Could be one of the Dogs, could be the GM, could be everybody in combination. The details of the stakes will almost always make it obvious how to play it out.

If the three Dogs don't agree how the stakes resolve, the conflict isn't over, and yes, they have to raise and see against one another.

-Vincent

[John Adams]

Thanks Vincent, that makes sense to me. It implies two important things: as you raise and see you make it clear how you want the stakes to fall and when you win the stakes you can't "defect" at the last moment and decide to have them fall some other way. Else how could the other players decide to support or oppose you? For example if we're riding full tilt after a sorcerer and I describe my Dog trying to catch him, I've made it clear I want him caught. I can't decide he actually escapes when I win the stakes.

[lumpley]

VERY nice observation. Thank you!

-Vincent