[Dogs] Taking the Blow and Seeing in Talking Conflicts
Simon C:
Going by the maxim that seeing blocks a raise's execution, and taking the blow blocks a raise's effect, I'm not sure you're right, and I think it's independant of the context.
If my raise is to throw your book in the water, my execution is getting the book wet, and my effect is to win the stakes of the conflict (say, making you show you care about your father). If you see, you stop my execution (the book stays dry). If you take the blow, you block the effect (the book gets wet, but you don't show you care about your father. You do get fallout though). If you give, the book stays dry, and you show you care about your father. This is what's cool about conflicts in Dogs.
I guess what I find hard about talking conflicts is that it's much harder to gauge what the "execution" of a talking raise is.
lumpley:
Simon, it sounds like this isn't a problem you've had in play, just something you're worried about, yeah?
My advice would be to grab a friend and a handful of dice and give it a try. Use the standby demo scenario: "your older brother, right, his 14-year-old son has been sneaking money and taking it to the prostitute. Now you meet your brother on the road. He's got his shotgun, he's going to go murder her." Make some just talking raises and see how taking the blow vs blocking or dodging works.
-Vincent
Simon C:
Hi Vincent,
We're halfway through our fifth Dogs town right now, so I feel like I've got a bunch of experience with talking conflicts. The thing is, we're just starting to understand the potential of the mechanics when you're strict about the IIEE process. We recently had a really neat physical conflict that demonstrated how taking the blow and blocking are markedly different, and important. The problem is that in talking conflicts, the difference seems less important. We've had a lot of talking conflicts where taking the blow or seeing don't seem to have mattered. I think it's because it's hard to pin down what the "execution" of a talking raise is - what do you get if they take the blow?
We've had some really good, intense talking conflicts, but it's never felt vitally important whether you take the blow or not. Does taking the blow mean conceding their point, for example? Brand's example seems to say yes. Can I make someone do something they don't want to do (without treading on the stakes)?
lumpley:
Oh! That changes things.
In just talking conflicts, the difference is generally less important. It doesn't surprise or worry me that you've had a lot of just talking conflicts where it hasn't mattered much or any.
The general purpose of the just talking arena is to get you to escalate out of it. Accordingly, no, you can't make anybody do anything. If "go make me eggs!" is the raise, then "okay, okay, eggs coming up" is a perfectly legit way to take the blow, of course, but so is "yeah, you have a point, maybe I should make you eggs. But I'm not going to."
I've emphasized "general" because there will be times in play when a just talking conflict, or the just talking phase of a conflict, will be crucial, and when taking a just talking blow vs blocking or dodging it will make all the difference in the world. Those occasions, though - you'll know them when you see them, and they'll take care of themselves. If you haven't had any yet yourself, that's okay. Maybe you never will.
As a rule, though, the way to get something is to escalate.
-Vincent
Simon C:
Thanks Vincent, that makes sense.
I think we have had conflicts where the taking the blow seemed important. A recent town where my dog was basically being told (by one of the other dogs) that he wasn't good enough to do the job, and he should just quit. She was saying all this incredibly harsh stuff, but it was all true, and my dog was just taking the blow all over the place.
So it seems like in talking conflicts, taking the blow can be more of a thematic statement about what your character believes, or how a particular point affects your character,
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page