[DitV] Escalating in dice but not in the fiction
Moreno R.:
I was reading this recent thread: [DitV] questions on Raises and Sees, and that made me think again about the "seeing a specific arena means escalating to it" rule (it's not in the book, Vincent explained it in this post from last year.
Thinking about it, I realized that in my DitV sessions I went the other way around. Last year, in that thread, I talked about some way for the character to avoid escalating. I now realize that I really never use the "seeing a specific arena means escalating to it" rule. I used it a few times, and after a while I stopped. I really didn't like the way it de-responsabilized the dogs. removing the choice between escalating and avoiding violence (with that rule, they have their cake and can eat it too: get all the dice from gunfighting without having to do any violence in the fiction)
Example: Brother Joseph is trying to disarm Helen, a pregnant 15 years old nubile girl that was the daughter of a Sorcerer, but wasn't in the corrupt cult (her father became a Sorcerer to protect her, and was shoot down by Brother Joseph a few scenes before). She is trying to kill Brother Joseph to avenge her father, and Brother Joseph is trying to subdue her without harming her or the unborn child
Now, if Helen make a raise shooting Joseph, she escalate to gunfighting (she was only using the gun to menace him before, then they got into a physical struggle that Joseph would have easily won). Without that rule Brother Joseph now would have to choose: between escalating by shooting back (risking to kill them - I have a lot of 1s and 2s left, just in case, to be able to build a lot of fallout for Helen) or risking being killed.
Having to choose, Joseph don't escalate, and this choice tells a lot about the character.
With that rule, Joseph will get the gunfighting escalation dice, no questions asked. He will easily win the conflict, with raises like "I talk to her" or "I cuddle her in my arms" and never even touching his gun. He can easily get everything he wants by following that simple course of action. But, as Vincent said in a old article, "There's no creating theme if the issue has only one credible side."
By the other hand, I don't see what problem that rule solve. From that thread and other answers from Vincent, I get the impression that the desired result is to have every character in a conflict in the same arena of conflict at all times. But why having different characters in different arena of conflict should be a problem? DiTV is a game for (optimally) 2-3 players + a GM, too few persons to have problems or confusion at the table about who-is-doing-what.
Worse, that rule risk causing confusion, by removing some of the ties between the dice and the fiction.
So, what I would like to ask in this thread is:
- To Vincent: what is the reason behind that rule?
- To everybody: did you have any problem that I did not see, by not using that rule?
lumpley:
Without that rule:
If you're low on dice and I escalate to gunfighting with a raise you can't see, I've put you out of the conflict without giving you the chance to escalate. I win the stakes by mechanically denying you the choice to shoot back.
-Vincent
Moreno R.:
Quote from: lumpley on May 18, 2011, 04:49:26 AM
Without that rule:
If you're low on dice and I escalate to gunfighting with a raise you can't see, I've put you out of the conflict without giving you the chance to escalate. I win the stakes by mechanically denying you the choice to shoot back.
Ah, now I see the reason why I did not see the problem...
In my group we always assumed that, if someone shoot you, and you see the raise with "I draw my gun and duck behind a barrel shooting back" (or something like that, combining and action to avoid the raise with a clear intention so shoot back) it does count for "escalating on a see". It still has the same mechanical effect on that problem, but it doesn't remove the choice of escalating from the player (I did not made up this rule for that reason: I simply always assumed it was the right way to play...)
lumpley:
That sounds to me like a rock-solid, by-the-book combination of the escalating on a see rule plus the most discerning player rule. No big deal.
-Vincent
Noclue:
Vincent, what would be the downside of saying that you don't get unfitting dice unless your trying to shoot back. So, if you want to duck for cover, that's cool but that's physical. But if you want to get the benefit of being in a gunfight it demands some gunfighting from you.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page