[DitV] Escalating in dice but not in the fiction
Noclue:
Actually, I see you respond to Moreno in the thread from last year that you don't do it that way but it won't break the game. Nm
lumpley:
Even so, if you can't escalate to gunfighting on your see then I can put you out of a conflict mechanically by escalating on my raise when you don't have the dice to see it.
You have a 4, a 3 and a 1 left on the table. We've already gone from just talking to physical, so we've both already rolled acuity, body and heart.
I say "I shoot you!" I roll 4d6 or whatever for my will. I raise with a 10.
If you can't escalate to gunfighting on the see, you're out of the conflict without having had a chance to shoot back.
-Vincent
Noclue:
I actually never imagined you couldn't escalate on your See.
Christoph Boeckle:
Hi
This is getting confusing for me. It seems to me like Moreno is saying "Escalating to gunfighting without actually firing a gun (but Seeing somebody who is) is not satisfactory". In the thread Moreno is linking to, Vincent seemed to be saying that "Escalation only has to be fiction-led for the guy starting it, all others who stay in the conflict get the dice from the new arena regardless of what they're doing." Vincent seems to be saying in the current thread that "if you can't Escalate on a See, you might suffer a technical KO". I don't quite see how this new answer addresses Moreno's point, but it's part of the discussion all right.
So is it okay to sum it up like so:
The conflict is at, say, talking. Everybody rolls Acuity and Heart.
A guy starts shooting. He rolls Will.
Everybody who stays in the conflict gets to roll their Will as well (it's not really a choice, they just do it), regardless of what they're actually doing (because if they couldn't do that, they might be forced to give).
If that's okay, then I think the expression "escalating on a See" is confusing because it might be taken for meaning something like the following example.
The conflict is at, say, talking. Everybody rolls Acuity and Heart.
Rich makes a powerful Raise that his opponent Sam cannot See as such.
Sam escalates to gunfighting (fiction and mechanics) and Sees with his new dice.
What's not clear to me is when exactly people roll their new dice if the rule "when somebody escalates, all players who stay in the conflict get to roll the dice of the new arena regardless of what their character is doing" is indeed correct.
For example, in my second example, does Sam get to observe what Rich rolled for his Will before making his Raise? I'd say that Rich only gets to talk (and thus decide if he stays in the conflict) on his See, so that's when he rolls his Will (regardless of fictional content), meaning that Sam has to Raise without knowing what Rich will get.
Moreno R.:
Quote from: Christoph Boeckle on May 25, 2011, 02:57:59 AM
If that's okay, then I think the expression "escalating on a See" is confusing because it might be taken for meaning something like the following example.
The conflict is at, say, talking. Everybody rolls Acuity and Heart.
Rich makes a powerful Raise that his opponent Sam cannot See as such.
Sam escalates to gunfighting (fiction and mechanics) and Sees with his new dice.
I don't see "escalating on a see" as confusing, because your example is in my opinion perfectly legal.
Example (it's always better to use concrete examples): I play the dog, the GM is playing a mob of angry townspeople.
The Gm Raise with "they run to you and push you down the ground" (fighting)
I escalate to gunfighting (I say "I draw my gun and shoot") ---> I get the dice and complete my narration parrying with "I shoot in the air over their head, and they stop"
In this case, against a mob, I could even say that I shoot down the first one who try to touch me, but it depends on what a group allow on a parry. My one would.
It's not easy to parry something with a gun, they are build to kill, not to protect, but this is simply a narration problem: if you can see a way to do it in the fiction, you can do it.
About the problem cited by Vincent:
Quote from: lumpley on May 24, 2011, 05:42:46 PM
Even so, if you can't escalate to gunfighting on your see then I can put you out of a conflict mechanically by escalating on my raise when you don't have the dice to see it.
You have a 4, a 3 and a 1 left on the table. We've already gone from just talking to physical, so we've both already rolled acuity, body and heart.
I say "I shoot you!" I roll 4d6 or whatever for my will. I raise with a 10.
If you can't escalate to gunfighting on the see, you're out of the conflict without having had a chance to shoot back.
This lack something. The context is important: when this would happen?
It's the last exchange in what was probably a very long and drawn-out conflict (it's not easy to exhaust the mountains of dice a dog roll every conflict...). So the player could see himself remaining without dice a mile away. And he know that the opponent has still a possible escalation left.
Why he didn't escalate, before remaining without dice?
I suggest that a dog can't remain without dice and with some possible escalation left, without having chosen to do so, knowingly. The dice are visible to everybody, at the table. The dog's player can see that his opponent will beat him if he will not escalate, a long time before the moment he will remain with no dice to see. So why he did not escalate on his turn?
It's a choice. A informed, deliberate choice. Allowing him to "get the escalation dice for free" remove weight from that choice, turning it from a "hard choice" into a "easy strategy that work every time: let your opponent escalate and get all the dice for fighting, gunfighting and pushing without having to worry about getting your hands dirty: you can simply talk about the sacred scriptures and get all the dice anyway, exactly as if you did shoot someone".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page