Quote from: Elliot Wilen;427312It all sounds nice on paper, but in practice I found that narrating anything other than straight attacks didn't have much substance, since the nature of what you do or say has no real effect, only the dice you push.

This is basically the reservation I have with the DitV system. I don't see why it would need to be this way, but I think the mechanics tend to make it a sort of seductive favoring of the path of least resistance.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;427291So in this game, if a player wants to accomplish a task where the only source of conflict would be time (let's say they need to seal all the doors in the church before sundown and some vampires come riding into town), the GM would just say 'yes you succeed'?

It falls back to "roll the dice or say yes", but conflicts related to time are fine and can be really fun. As a GM I'd probably just agree to the example you offer - "OK, the doors are sealed. Now what?" - unless there were factors complicating it, like townspeople who didn't want their church sealed up.

But another example might be "Do you make it to Kettle Falls in time to stop the wedding?", which is a really juicy man-vs-nature conflict I would definitely throw down for, particularly if there was demonic influence that really wanted the marriage to happen and the Dogs to miss it. Then it is a race against time, and my raises as GM are things like "billowing snow obscures the path" and "your horses rear up and refuse to move forward, terrified by some unseen force ahead". Good stuff.

Eliot, responding with a single die instead of two or more is called turning the blow, and it is tactically devastating - you retain your die (which will be a high number to begin with) instead of losing it, and you shape the fiction accordingly. If you view the resolution system of Dogs as a minigame, eyeing your opponent's available dice is crucial to avoid putting forward dice he can turn with one of his own. If he's got a ten sitting there, you need to raise with at least eleven, every time, if you want to keep the conflict going.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;427312You would have to identify the conflict. In GW's initial scenario, the conflict would most likely be between the PCs and the vampires, although if the immediate problem was that someone in town disagreed, then your conflict would be with them.

You need to identify goals or stakes--at least something that one side is trying to accomplish and the other side wants to prevent. Since the vampires probably don't give a crap about sealing doors, that probably isn't where the real conflict lies.

Not to be overly pedantic but that isn't the point of that example. The purpose was a test to see how well the players can seal their defences. It's acceptable to assume those defences aren't impenetrable, but the results of the player's efforts can be used in their overall defence come sundown. How would that work in Dogs?

If you're having trouble thinking what i mean, go check out Call of Duty's zombie modes.

It's a stake-setting issue.  If what matters is "Can we seal the church and keep the vampires out?" that might be a good conflict, if the outcome either way is meaningful and interesting. If the answer is "obviously not" or "of course you can", as indicated by the established situation, then it isn't a conflict at all. In any case the physical task of sealing the church ("Can we find hammers and nails to seal the church?") is probably not conflict-worthy and the stakes need to be more focused on what the players actually care about (presumably the vampires).

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;427400It's a stake-setting issue.  If what matters is "Can we seal the church and keep the vampires out?" that might be a good conflict, if the outcome either way is meaningful and interesting. If the answer is "obviously not" or "of course you can", as indicated by the established situation, then it isn't a conflict at all. In any case the physical task of sealing the church ("Can we find hammers and nails to seal the church?") is probably not conflict-worthy and the stakes need to be more focused on what the players actually care about (presumably the vampires).

And, with the caveat this this is from reading the rules, not actual play, the challenge here is that for problems to become dramatically important enough to be resolved through the system, the group may need to find (perhaps artificially, but this would ideally come about naturally/instinctually) a way to frame them dramatically meaningfully. For example "are we willing to tear apart portions of the sacred church building itself, technically desecrating it, in order to protect the townspeople?" whereas another dog might say "if we only make a symbolic sealing, a board across the door, our faith will be what really seals out the enemy."

Jason or anyone else, correct me if this is a conflict that isn't in the spirit of the game/rules.

GW, the "fact" of sealing the doors has no mechanical "bite" unless it's an action inside a conflict--in which case its effectiveness within the conflict is whatever dice back it up. Now, it could be that the group doesn't see a reasonable way to overcome the sealing, in which case no matter what dice the other side has, they should (be forced to) "give". But that's the problem I pointed to above.

If sealing the doors is itself the conflict, then if the GM "says yes", or if the PCs win, the doors are sealed. But again, there's no mechanical significance to this "fact". It won't affect other conflicts except insofar as the group enforces it.

Actually, there is a rule for follow-on conflicts that could apply. Say the vampires give. Iirc they could keep some of the remaining dice in their pool and use them in a new, related conflict. But actually this would make "winning" the door-sealing conflict less effective for the PCs.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;427404Actually, there is a rule for follow-on conflicts that could apply. Say the vampires give. Iirc they could keep some of the remaining dice in their pool and use them in a new, related conflict. But actually this would make "winning" the door-sealing conflict less effective for the PCs.

This is my understanding, though I could see this being a feature rather than a flaw if one felt it heightened the drama of play. But if players are very invested in PC success, it seems the potential conflict between the agendas could lead to a sideline game of how to "pick your battles."

Yes, you really don't want to have a conflict that allows a followup like that, which is why I suggested that "sealing up the church" is better used as a "raise" than as stakes.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;427439Yes, you really don't want to have a conflict that allows a followup like that, which is why I suggested that "sealing up the church" is better used as a "raise" than as stakes.

Ah, I think I follow you. It is an interesting factor to me - where you have a model based around conflict and the results of of a conflict have potential in various situations for Pyrrhic victory or net loss to winner and loser alike from an upcoming conflict with another. But it's on a very abstract level, the action seems to become sort of an allegory for player behavior rather than executing it.

Quote from: Cole;427403And, with the caveat this this is from reading the rules, not actual play, the challenge here is that for problems to become dramatically important enough to be resolved through the system, the group may need to find (perhaps artificially, but this would ideally come about naturally/instinctually) a way to frame them dramatically meaningfully. For example "are we willing to tear apart portions of the sacred church building itself, technically desecrating it, in order to protect the townspeople?" whereas another dog might say "if we only make a symbolic sealing, a board across the door, our faith will be what really seals out the enemy."

Jason or anyone else, correct me if this is a conflict that isn't in the spirit of the game/rules.

That's definitely true. As GM, you really want to be asking "how far are you guys willing to go? This far? This far? What about now?"

So yeah, if the GM is on the ball, that's a great response - "Sure, you guys can totally seal the church, snug and safe, but you'll have to mess it up to do that. Kettle Falls' brand new, lovingly built church. You OK with that, knowing it will break these people's hearts and make some of them hate you?"

Ideally you want to sow seeds of doubt and conflict between the characters and get them opposed to one another, because three unified Dogs will win pretty much any conflict if their players are smart. I always try to have NPCs that are perfectly reasonable and sympathetic, but represent diametrically opposed viewpoints on the situation, just to kick-start this process. Once you have two players who cannot agree on a course of action, things get interesting fast.

Another point - giving rather than raising in a conflict has to be encouraged, and it is in the GMs interest to give early and often. You grant your opponent a modest benefit but don't exhaust your resources. Fallout - the side effect of being banged around in conflicts - is actually pretty beneficial to the players, and it ramps up quickly in knock-down conflicts. So again it comes back to stakes, because you always want to set stakes that make giving acceptable and even tempting. "Do I kill this dude?" is a terrible stake, because there is no ambiguity and no incentive to give.

Quote from: Jason Morningstar;427491Another point - giving rather than raising in a conflict has to be encouraged, and it is in the GMs interest to give early and often.

What are the best ways for the GM to encourage this, in your opinion?

Setting stakes that have meaningful outcomes but that are not monolithic, and leading by example.