Organizing Conflict
jburneko:
Hello,
Here are the ways I would handle it. As Vincent has pointed out all those shouting of actions is simply the social indicator that a conflict is present and that the stakes are the woman's life. I would go with the ruling that Alpha Dog makes the first raise since it's his action that started all the shouting.
I can now see two ways to handle it.
The Hard Core Way: By the rules the person who makes the raise also declares who has to see the raise. If he says, "I shoot the woman and she has to raise" then the other character's can't mechanically do anything. They can still do all that jumping around in the fiction, it just has no mechanical effect. The woman see's the raise. I'm stricter than James, if Raiser says he's shooting the woman than that's what taking the blow means. She can't take the blow by having someone she cares about get shot instead.
The Less Hard Core Way: If one of the Dogs wants to see FOR the woman he can. But I would only allow this if his paired "initiative" order was higher than the woman's. And if more than ONE dog wants to see in place of the woman than only the one with the highest initiative order can do it.
Do you see what's happening here? All that shouting at the beginning? That's just declaration of *intention*. The characters within the fiction haven't actually started doing anything until the dice sort it out.
Jesse
Moreno R.:
Quote from: jburneko on August 03, 2009, 04:39:57 PM
The Hard Core Way: By the rules the person who makes the raise also declares who has to see the raise. If he says, "I shoot the woman and she has to raise" then the other character's can't mechanically do anything. They can still do all that jumping around in the fiction, it just has no mechanical effect.
A little correction: they can help the woman and give her dice
Quote
The woman see's the raise. I'm stricter than James, if Raiser says he's shooting the woman than that's what taking the blow means. She can't take the blow by having someone she cares about get shot instead.
I agree, that would be a parry. But if you help the woman putting yourself in the line of fire, and you helping die turn the see from a taking the blow to a parry, she could narrate you being hit by the bullet.
cra2:
Quote from: Moreno R. on August 03, 2009, 06:22:30 PM
I agree, that would be a parry. But if you help the woman putting yourself in the line of fire, and you helping die turn the see from a taking the blow to a parry, she could narrate you being hit by the bullet.
So if the Alpha Dog raises a shot at her and she sees with one die, the Alpha Dog shoots himself?
Noclue:
Quote from: jburneko on August 03, 2009, 04:39:57 PM
I'm stricter than James, if Raiser says he's shooting the woman than that's what taking the blow means. She can't take the blow by having someone she cares about get shot instead.
Well, in my mind since both NPCs are under control of the GM, it really would depend on the fiction, which is properly centered on the Dogs and the effect the narration has on the Dog that did the raise. From that POV, my example probably fails because arguably hitting the innocent father could cause fallout to the shooter. It might be a great reversing the blow move though...:)
My main point stands that broadening the conceptualization of fallout from just physical damage is a good thing.
Moreno R.:
Hi Cra2 (what's your name? I am used to normal names on the Forge, as for site policy, and I feel a little silly calling you "Cra2")
I think it's better if I write an example.
As Jesse said, all that "I stop him", "i kill her", etc etc at the beginning are ONLY conflict declarations. They DON'T force the action of the character when the conflict starts.
At the beginning of the conflict, the players and the GM must decide (1) What's a stake (in this case, the life of the woman), and (2) the arena of the conflict for their character at the start (some character will start shooting, other doing other things, etc.: this modify the dice you roll at the beginning. (page 54)
At the beginning each PLAYER (GM included) rolls ONLY the stats and applicable relationships (no traits, no objects), and all roll at the same time. Then, in the order given by the dice (adding together the two best dice) or in the order that make more sense if there is one, EVERYONE, one at the time, say what it's his/her action.
What does this mean? That (1) the woman and the shopkeeper share a single dice pool and the GM must decide each time who of them will act in his turn, and (2) the characters are not tied in their raise to what the players declared at the beginning, but only to the arena.
In your example, Alpha Dog shoot the woman, and declare that only the woman has to see his raise. The rules (page 70) state that "everybody whose character is affected has to See. You decide who that is; make it clear in your description of your Raise", so if some other character already stated that he is in front of the woman, or is obviously affected, you HAVE to include them in the raise.
Let's say that this is not the case, and Alpha Dog can state that only the woman has to see. The GM, for her reasons, decide to let the woman get hit by the bullet (by taking the blow). Bravo Dog want to avoid this, but he can't block the shot for the woman. So he say that he help her by getting into the line of fire, and give to the GM a die big enough to force a reverse the blow (for example, the die could be only one number lower than the total raise). The GM at this time has no choice but to reverse the blow.
What does it mean "reverse the blow"? From your answers, you seem to think that it's making the bullet ricochet into the one who fired it. Like it was a ball, and "block" would mean "blocking the ball" and "reversing the ball" would mean "hitting the ball turning it back to the one who shoot her". But it's not like that, You are not "blocking" a ball, or a bullet, you are blocking an ACTION. And, in the case of a "turning the blow", you are turning an action in something unfavorable to the one who did shoot.
In the case of that example, having Alpha Dog hit Bravo Dog could ALREADY be seen as a turning the blow: Alpha Dog wanted to kill a sinner, and he did shot instead a fellow dog.
Another case of turning the blow, if Bravo Dog would not have done nothing and the GM had turned the blow by herself, would have been this: the shot HIT the woman (no fallout, though) and PUSH HER OUTSIDE OF THE WINDOW, saving her from other bullets. An action meant to slay her ended up saving her (momentarily, because the conflict s not still ended)
At this time, it's (for example) Charlie Dog's turn. At the beginning he had stated that he wanted to grab the gun from Alpha Dog. But let's say, for this example, that Alpha Dog is horrified from him having shoot Bravo Dog and Charlie Dog change his mind, and push the woman away from the room. It's not a real "change of intention", because the REAL raise from Charlie Dog was to be stated now, not before the conflict.
It's clear now?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page