[Dogs in the Vineyard] Point Hollow
Paul T:
Agreed!
A couple of comments:
* As far as escalating and "de-escalating" goes, the way it made sense to me was to think of it in the context of a story, like a film or a novel. If a punch was thrown, or a gun was fired in a scene, that conflict definitely escalated, you know? It doesn't mean if there was more talking afterwards.
Also, if you couldn't Raise within any arena you've already opened, there'd be this weird thing where, if you went from gunfighting to talking, you could do longer fire your gun. John's take on it--a Raise has to be something your opponent can't ignore, and that gets harder as things get more out of control--is probably the best way to look at it.
* Hey, it doesn't really matter, but I'm pretty I DO remember Enos and Cyrus having a dice conflict over whether Enos should shoot Christopher or not in the very first soon. But I think you bought into my arguments and just Gave a Raise or two in.
* Oddly enough, the next day I had to work with a new employee who I was supposed to train, and his name was Anis. I had "Enos" and "Anis" bouncing around in my head all day, trying to remember which was which, and trying even harder to make sure I didn't mispronounce the name so it sounded like something rude... yow!
As for the lag time, I'm not sure what to do about that. As John points out, it's got to go somewhere, so it's going to slow things down no matter where you do it. I know I'll be quicker now that I have a better idea of how the game works and of what my options are.
I definitely think that if you have the perfect Raise ready on the tip of your tongue, you might as well shout it out and then decide what dice to push forward. However, when Seeing, you've got to know the total before you do that.
My hesitation in play always occurred when I was thinking dice -> fiction, not fiction -> dice. I had to stop and think when I knew I didn't want to throw the conflict, but wasn't sure what my options were, so I had to mentally review my moves: escalate? give? bring in a trait? which one? use a possession? which one? ...and then weigh the options to see which made the most sense.
The most awkward part of resolution I find is when you're Seeing and you want to bring in a trait to use. You have to narrate something to bring in the Trait... but you can't decide fully what to narrate until you know what the dice have rolled. A couple of times I knew what I wanted to do, but when the dice rolled too low (or too high!) I had to change my idea before I could narrate. That certainly introduces a weird hiccup.
David Berg:
Quote from: jenskot on May 18, 2009, 03:49:58 PM
If the pause is due to the pressure of making a decision with hefty consequences… I can almost imagine the character moving in slow motion with sweat running down their brow. The player’s tension, even with no one describing anything, can actually add to my immersion.
Dude, we totally need to make this happen. I mean, I'd like to see if we can share that at the table, rather than just it maybe happening in one player's head. Slo-mo narration rocks!
Quote from: jenskot on May 18, 2009, 03:49:58 PM
When you Raise, have your character do something that his opponent can’t ignore.
Yeah, I try to do that. I just have a moment of dissonance as I hit some "sounds like the time for talk is through" moments in the fiction but still have this big ol' pile of dice in front of me. Two parts to this:
1) Two big piles of unused dice tells my brain "no need to roll more of them just yet", and results in odd pacing and creative strain as we try to trade a series of "things you can't ignore" in a mere conversation. This awkwardness strengthens my inclination to just do what makes sense to me in the fiction, escalate if it seems apt, dice be damned. However:
2) It feels weird to readjust the sides' resources if I'm winning. I mean, I don't really care about winning... losing is equally fun... but I feel like I'm playing the game wrong if I take that attitude to the resolution mechanics... like I'm not giving them a fair chance.
Lance D. Allen:
A small revelation just came to me reading ya'll's discussion.
Something you can't ignore? What the hell is that?
You can ignore someone shooting at you, if you want. It's going to have an effect, but you don't have to respond to it.
So here's what occurred to me.
Something you "can't ignore" means something that you must respond to. Meaning that if you ignore it, then that is a response. It has a consequence.
If you yell to stop when I'm shooting at you, I can ignore it without any real effect. Your words are simply color.
If you yell to stop in the Name of the King of Life, then my shooting you anyway *means* something. It means that, right here, right now, shooting you is more important to me than the King of Life.
Paul T:
Lance,
I like that!
Dave,
On the slo-mo narration thing: yes! Not sure how, exactly, though. Let's try it.
Quote from: David Berg on May 18, 2009, 11:21:55 PM
Yeah, I try to do that. I just have a moment of dissonance as I hit some "sounds like the time for talk is through" moments in the fiction but still have this big ol' pile of dice in front of me. Two parts to this:
1) Two big piles of unused dice tells my brain "no need to roll more of them just yet", and results in odd pacing and creative strain as we try to trade a series of "things you can't ignore" in a mere conversation. This awkwardness strengthens my inclination to just do what makes sense to me in the fiction, escalate if it seems apt, dice be damned. However:
2) It feels weird to readjust the sides' resources if I'm winning. I mean, I don't really care about winning... losing is equally fun... but I feel like I'm playing the game wrong if I take that attitude to the resolution mechanics... like I'm not giving them a fair chance.
Are you saying that you hesitate to escalate yourself, because they are dice still on the table? Or because you think that your opposition might get lucky now, when they roll more dice, robbing you of victory?
I'm curious.
I DO think that the Dogs vibe is very much that it's generally the losing party that escalates--because, if you can get what you want without escalating, why would you? That seems pretty much like real life, I'd say.
I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, though.
Paul
Jasper Flick:
Quote from: Paul T on May 18, 2009, 09:23:38 PM
The most awkward part of resolution I find is when you're Seeing and you want to bring in a trait to use. You have to narrate something to bring in the Trait... but you can't decide fully what to narrate until you know what the dice have rolled. A couple of times I knew what I wanted to do, but when the dice rolled too low (or too high!) I had to change my idea before I could narrate. That certainly introduces a weird hiccup.
I've encountered and posted about that same issue in Seeing when everything depends on the future. What it boiled down to was that you either aren't bothered by the backtracking, or go ahead and roll dice first if you're seeing.
Great AP folks!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page