[Dogs in the Vineyard] Point Hollow
Paul T:
Oh, hey, a question:
I did find myself kind of unsure of how much I could define the Stake(s) when I was initiating a conflict, though. Because sometimes the implications of the conflict kind of changed between the opening of the conflict and its resolution. For instance, if I have a conflict with Sister Annie where she's trying to get me to take her daughter to the town square (say), but my last two or three Raises are all something like "Get ye back home to your husband!", it seems that, when she loses or Gives, what really should happen is that she should agree to go back home to her husband, not just give up on trying to get her way.
Does that make sense? I felt a little uncertain in play as to how this was supposed to pan out.
Specifically, in the case of this AP report, I'm thinking of that conflict where Sister Annie was wearing my coat. Yes, I wanted my coat back, and yes, she wanted to seduce me, but really what I'd come to do was to get her to stop her whoring. But in play, I felt like we weren't syncing up a hundred percent, and I'm not sure whether the consequences of the conflict include any lasting repercussions of that sort.
I can't even remember who reached for the dice first in that case, me or John. But since Annie and I both had an agenda in the, uh, "discussion", should that have been handled as two separate conflicts (1: Does Sister Annie seduce Cyrus? and 2: Does Cyrus get his coat back?)?
In actual play, I felt like what was established in the fiction was sufficient for the purposes of the game and the story. I almost feel like we can just roll the dice without naming anything consequences upfront and let the Sees and Raises tell us what's going down, and who's trying to achieve what. But the rules suggest that the What's at Stake should be a little more defined.
Any recommendations from the seasoned Dogs players?
jenskot:
Paul, thanks for weighing in!
Here are the relevant references to stakes in the text:
- "To launch a conflict, we begin by establishing what’s at stake, setting the stage, and figuring out who’s participating."
- "Anyone who has too few dice to See when they have to— and can’t or won’t escalate— is out of the conflict. Whoever’s left at the end gets to decide the fate of what’s at stake."
- "Establish what’s at stake. Any player can make suggestions, and everybody should feel free to toss it around until you arrive at the right thing."
- "The last person in the conflict gets to say what happens with what’s at stake."
The text implies that stakes should be explicit. From the text examples, stakes aren’t what happens but what is up for grabs. Your coat can be up for grabs. Or someone’s sanctity. Or someone’s life. There aren’t multiple side stakes. There isn’t if I win this happens, if you win that happens. And the person who wins the conflict can say what happens with what’s at stake (which we were playing loose with, next time I’ll make it more explicit that the winner describes what happens with what is at stake).
Generally we’ve played where the stakes stem from the actions described. The GM says yes or roll the dice. If we roll the dice, what we are rolling the dice for is what is at stake. But I should do a better job explicitly underlining what that is. And the group should weigh in with their opinions of what feels appropriate to the actions described and if the scale and scope is reasonable. In some of the conflicts, we were explicit but in many we weren’t. Next game we will be more explicit and see how that feels.
In terms of the example with Sister Annie, it would have helped to be more explicit. My understanding was that your coat was at stake since the fiction was driving towards that with Enos literally dragging everyone to Annie’s bedroom for that explicit purpose. Your seduction is no longer at stake since she failed to seduce you before. I’m not sure what the rules say about stake’s lasting repercussions. I’ve played it that stakes stick till the situation changes and there is a conflict to change them.
But raises and sees can resolve and define other fictional elements. Disarming a gun can be the stakes of a conflict. Or disarming a gun can be a raise within another conflict. So your coat can be at stake, but seduction can be used to achieve that end. You can’t kill a Dog with a raise or see unless their life is at stake. But is everything else up for grabs as part of a raise or see? Can you change a trait as part of stakes? Destroy a belonging? What about as part of a raise or see? Are lasting repercussions different if the fiction is defined via winning stakes vs. taking the blow? It’s fuzzy. You could raise me and I could describe my see as occurring days later. I believe many of the answers to these questions are determined by group consensus. Possibly moment to moment.
Paul T:
Thanks, John.
I'm still mulling this over. Let's play the next session and see how it goes!
David Berg:
One note on gameworld color in general and environmental detail in particular:
John didn't offer a ton, but whenever I asked for some, he didn't mind answering, and in fact his answers were quite satisfying. I hope this continues. This is my preferred way to play: players slow the pace and pursue vividness because they want to experience it; GM responds by giving them the experience they request.
Re: conflicts vs just roleplaying:
1) Disclaimer: I'm more used to speaking in-character as a means of moving play along, and less used to rolling dice before someone's life is at stake.
2) In an effort to really play Dogs as intended, I put some mental effort into correlating dice to fiction. Specfically, I tried to keep track of action types. There were a few moments during conflicts when John pushed forward dice for a physical action, and then Paul pushed forward dice (either to see or to make the next attack, I can't remember) for a talking action. And I went, "Paul, are you allowed to do that? I thought this interaction has Escalated, meaning we're past the point of mere talk!" See, I thought that was a big part of the symbolic point of the Dogs resolution system. But no, John said that only the action you take to get "physical" dice needs to be physical, and thereafter you can "de-escalate" if you want. So, this experience was mildly annoying to me, but certainly an acceptable part of learning a new game. Now that I know what to do, though, I'm a bit fuzzier on why I should bother.
3) The conflict John described above where Cyrus convinces Enos not to kill Christopher wasn't actually a formal conflict. No dice were rolled then. (Dice were rolled much alter over the same issue.) Also, I felt that the most important decision I made in the session was to not have a conflict when my former hero Colt lined up his shot to assassinate the Moutain People's leader. So, my opinion at the moment is that we needn't worry at all about ratio of conflict to play time. John's Point Hollow is a satisfyingly pregnant situation in which Paul and I can't help but make meaningful choices, whether the dice are involved or no.
4) Putting the fiction on hold while someone tried to think of an in-fiction way to express their (already-decided-upon) die-use sucked. Presumably this is a learned skill that Paul and I will get better at. Even John sometimes has observable lag time, but to a degree that is less distracting. I wonder if perhaps it might be better to respond in the fiction first, and then decide what to do with the dice, as a way of concluding, "...and here's the impact of what I just did:"
Actually, John, did you do that? Regularly? Ever? I can remember my own moments of awkwardness, and my moments of boredom while waiting for Paul, more clearly than I can remember the smoothest parts. And certainly, overall, this was a pretty smooth session.
jenskot:
Dave, thanks for posting!
Quote from: David Berg on May 18, 2009, 02:55:05 PM
One note on gameworld color in general and environmental detail in particular:
John didn't offer a ton, but whenever I asked for some, he didn't mind answering, and in fact his answers were quite satisfying. I hope this continues. This is my preferred way to play: players slow the pace and pursue vividness because they want to experience it; GM responds by giving them the experience they request.
As a player, this is also my preferred way of being exposed to color. Things start fuzzy and undefined but as I show interest and ask questions, the GM zooms in and those details become clear. As a GM I prefer this because I rarely know how much color a player is interested in. It not only varies from player to player but moment to moment.
Quote from: David Berg on May 18, 2009, 02:55:05 PM
I thought this interaction has Escalated, meaning we're past the point of mere talk!" See, I thought that was a big part of the symbolic point of the Dogs resolution system. But no, John said that only the action you take to get "physical" dice needs to be physical, and thereafter you can "de-escalate" if you want. So, this experience was mildly annoying to me, but certainly an acceptable part of learning a new game.
Originally when I first started playing Dogs I thought the same thing. How can you de-escalate from gunfighting to talking? Fiction from books to movies show this happening all the time so it’s not that strange but rules wise I wasn’t sure. The rule that keeps this all together is:
“When you Raise, have your character do something that his opponent can’t ignore.”
If someone is shooting at you and you start talking to them, if the group feels talking is something that can easily be ignored, then it doesn’t count. This counts for any Raise. Telling the shooter to stop may have no affect. But telling them you know where their kidnapped daughter is likely will cause them to pause. It's also important not to set hard limits so that after someone says something I can't ignore, I still have the option to go back to shooting them. There is no hard rule. It’s contextually sensitive to the specific situation and the specific player’s suspension of disbelief. So if you feel a Raise doesn’t make sense, ask the player to revise their Raise. Same thing with what is at Stake.
Quote from: David Berg on May 18, 2009, 02:55:05 PM
Also, I felt that the most important decision I made in the session was to not have a conflict when my former hero Colt lined up his shot to assassinate the Moutain People's leader.
This was my favorite moment of probably any game in the last few months of play. The macho attitude of conflict, conflict, conflict or bust I’ve sometimes seen is unfortunate because of the missed opportunity to have amazing moments like these! I’ve also seen amazing moments like these within conflicts where players give. When the color overpowers the desire to win… that’s one of the reasons I love roleplaying.
Quote from: David Berg on May 18, 2009, 02:55:05 PM
I wonder if perhaps it might be better to respond in the fiction first, and then decide what to do with the dice, as a way of concluding, "...and here's the impact of what I just did:"
I’ve tried both and am very open to experimenting. I’ve seen a few issues we should consider. Sometimes describing first, then pausing, then playing dice can interfere with the flow of narration since there is a lag between describing an attack and describing a defense. Also, you almost always need to know what dice you will play for your defense before you can describe it. Especially if you are taking the blow! I’ve found it sometimes difficult to get players in the mindset to describe taking damage or being disadvantaged. The disconnect might worsen the situation. Although you and Paul had no problem describing taking the blow! I find these pauses will also become less frequent the longer people play (although I still pause from time to time). And sometimes they are a gift! 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.
Fun!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page