What's at Stake in Dogs -- who leads?
Filip Luszczyk:
Vincent,
This is difficult. It's a matter of rules wording. "Nobody is allowed to call for the dice if there aren't any characters in a conflict" would contradict, wording considered, your clarification from your first post in this thread, i.e. "The game plays best if anybody and everybody launches conflicts and names the stakes, whenever they want." I fail to see how "whenever they want" is different from my "anytime" reformulation. However, you say it's incorrect, which I find strange - it seems to me that we are trying to communicate the same thing effectively, while you insist those are two different things. Specifically, it seems to me that when you said "whenever they want" you wanted to imply "provided there are characters in conflict in the first place", which is effectively the same I'm assuming in my "anytime" reformulation. We're talking conflicts the whole time, how would you have a conflict with nobody in it, for the love of God.
So I guess we are either both incorrect, both correct, or we're experiencing some sort of quantum anomaly.
Filip Luszczyk:
Moreno,
Yes, I think that's how we've played it normally, though now Vincent is sort of confusing me.
Second by second, I see it like this:
1. Somebody (anybody) processes the information and notices a conflict.
2. Somebody (anybody) who did the above announces that.
3. Say yes or roll the dice is applied.
4. Nobody announces "yes".
5. Somebody (the way we played it, anybody, though p.138 suggests the GM) announces "roll the dice". No "veto" possible regarding that at this point (I think).
6. Somebody (anybody) announces stakes.
7. The GM checks whether "the most critical player" rule applies.
8. If not, the stakes are set.
9. Otherwise, go to 6.
(With some space for suggestions and discussion between steps.)
Which amounts to "the group does it", though only in simplification, as obviously at any given moment only a single infividual player is actually doing something.
Paul T:
Vincent,
I think this makes sense to me. You're describing a pretty collaborative process, with the group applying the mechanics together as they best see fit, as opposed to a strict by-rules approach.
However (and this question goes for anyone), as a GM, should I be looking out for how often I (or others) call for conflicts and name what's at stake? Because I feel that if I, as GM, start initiating a lot of conflicts and naming those stakes, it'd be a bit like rolling over the players, leaving them on their heels, defensive-like.
Is this something I just shouldn't worry about? If I SHOULD worry about it, what are some good guidelines? What seems to work best in play?
lumpley:
I wouldn't worry about it. Ask me again after your second or third session if your worries come true in actual play.
-Vincent
Paul T:
Cool! Will do.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page