TheRPGSite

People are often accused of passing judgment on games without having actually read or played them. So I'm giving people a chance to record their current status in that regard.

I also suspect that some people form opinions of games based on playing them without having actually read them. In other words their opinion could well be a product of a particular interpretation transmitted when the game was taught to them verbally.

I'm posting this thread in the main RPG forum for maximum visibility but I don't object to it being moved.

I've set the answers to the poll as public. Don't vote if you don't want people to know what you've been doing. But I think it's reasonable to expect that non-voters will be assumed not to have any experience with the game.

EDIT: Ah, fuck. I thought I set the poll to public but it's not showing that way. I would still encourage people to assume it'll be public, and I hereby request that the admins set it that way if it isn't already.

I have read and played the game and I enjoyed it.

I've read the game thoroughly and played it. (I thought it was okay at first, then pretty much hated it.)

Havent read or played the game but more down to an inability to find a copy than any other reason.

I have not read or played DitV.

I have read DitV, but not played the game personally. I have also read a number of play reports, articles by the author regarding the game, etc.

I have read, played and enjoy ditv.

It plays best if you run it like the A-Team if every member was a D&D-style Palladin.

Not read or played it. Then again, i've never passed judgement on it either.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;424972(I thought it was okay at first, then pretty much hated it.)

What led to the transition?

I've read the rules but have never played it.

I've played it a ton and still really like it.

Hopefully someone will come along and move this thread to where it belongs. Putting it in the RPG category just to gain eyeballs isn't very cricket, since Dogs in the Vineyard clearly isn't a roleplaying game.

I have not read or played the game, because I don't care for the genre.

Read and played it. Fundamentally a depressing worldview, like most Forger games.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;424970People are often accused of passing judgment on games without having actually read or played them. So I'm giving people a chance to record their current status in that regard.

I own and have read Dogs in the Vineyard.  I considered giving it's cover honorable mention on the covers done right/wrong thread as an indie cover done right, in my opinion.  I thought it was well written and the advice about towns and the idea of creating enforcers enabled to solve problems as they see fit is something that could be applicable to other games.  What I don't have much use for are mechanics trying to get me to create intense interpersonal interaction between PCs and NPC and each other through a metagamy die-roll mechanic when I do that just fine without the mechanics, thanks.  I still can't really viscerally understand why people need to roll and play with dice to play through the scenarios that game sets up when they could just, well, role-play through it in character.  In short, I think it does some things very well but the dice mechanics interfere with the whole reason I play.  It's like those Pop-Up Videos (http://www.vh1.com/video/the-proclaimers/189546/pop-up-video-proclaimers-im-gonna-be.jhtml) where I just wish the pop-ups would stop popping up so I could watch the video and listen to it without the obnoxious plopping sound.

ADDED: I suppose I should add that I'd be willing to try a game if I had the opportunity at a convention or if someone I know were to volunteer to run it.

Quote from: Cole;424987What led to the transition?

Well, in-depth analysis isn't really the point of this thread. Basically it was partly a response to the subject matter, partly to unrealized promises from the hype. I found the mechanics to be pretty much non-functional, in that they required/invited continual negotiation and checking-in. ("Is it okay if I use these stakes? Is this raise okay with everybody?") And in a game that supposedly emphasizes social conflict and the possibility of non-violent approaches, the dice didn't really interact with the social--you could make a persuasive case and still be stonewalled by a GM whose dice were better, and you could have great dice but be unable to press an advantage without, basically, repeating yourself and going through the motions.

The argument goes that the dice "shape" the roleplaying but as such I found the mechanics pretty incompatible with an in-character point-of-view. There are other "story" games which I think are more straightforward about their paradigm, such as Polaris or My Life with Master, and I think they're more to my taste.

Neither, nor.

Cursory read
Played it once
Mormons creep me out

I haven't read or played it.
When I heard it was somehow about Mormons that turned me right off, having grown up in a community where they were the dominant faith.
Since then I've heard more that makes me think it would be interesting to give it a try.

Own it, read it, and want to play it.

Same as Peregrin. I own it and have for a long time, have read it and hope to play it in early 2011.

I've read DitV but not played it.  

Also, for what it's worth, I don't think I've ever voiced an opinion about this game one way or the other, which is what seems the point the issues that has prompted this thread.

Own it, read it, played several times, and some of its ideas have found use in another games of mine. Not very fond of the mechanics, but noting too terrible.

Quote from: Soylent Green;425053I've read DitV but not played it.  

Also, for what it's worth, I don't think I've ever voiced an opinion about this game one way or the other, which is what seems the point the issues that has prompted this thread.

Same here.

I guess the only opinion I voiced was that I like the town construction rules, and not whether I like the whole game - or not. (For the record - I don't think it is a bad game, but it's definitely not for me, for the same reasons Elliot Wilen and John Morrow stated; especially John's "the dice mechanics interfere with the whole reason I play" resonated with me.)

I have read it, but have not found others to play it with.
I have also read a number of play reports and articles by the author.
Interested in trying a ship instead of a town as the setting. With different "authority" sources of course.
=

Own it and have cursorily read it. I've played once and had quite a good time. I would play again, but I'm not interested enough in the subject matter to GM it myself.

I've read it and listened to a hilarious RPGMP3 podcast of it being played - part of the fun of the podcast for me (living in Utah) was listening to a thoroughly British interpretation of Mormons and the Pioneer West...

The mechanics are intriguing, but I'm not sure if I would be tempted to actually run it as a game.

Quote from: Soylent Green;425053Also, for what it's worth, I don't think I've ever voiced an opinion about this game one way or the other, which is what seems the point the issues that has prompted this thread.

Yeah, this thread really gives off the "I'm persecuted!" vibe. I can see it coming up again later when Elliot is talking about DitV and cries "You can't say anything bad about this game! I know you haven't read it!".

This is a thread about a non-RPG, so I'm moving it. For the record, I've read the game.

RPGPundit

:confused:

Where did I cry anything?

If there's a whiff of persecution here it's pretty hard to point to who's being persecuted. The background is that DitV has often been criticized here, for example in the recent thread about adding some DitV-derived mechanics in D&D. That thread got notice over on story-games, leading to comments claiming that the people who criticized or rejected DitV-style mechanics probably didn't really know the game.

The idea here was to gather individual & aggregate data in response to that claim, but so far the individual part isn't working out due to botched poll construction. Again, if you vote in this poll, please assume that your vote will be public, even though it doesn't show that way right now.

So, Pundit, can the poll be made public? I think everyone's had fair warning.

Everyone who has not read this game will be rounded up for resettlement.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;425111If there's a whiff of persecution here it's pretty hard to point to who's being persecuted. The background is that DitV has often been criticized here, for example in the recent thread about adding some DitV-derived mechanics in D&D. That thread got notice over on story-games, leading to comments claiming that the people who criticized or rejected DitV-style mechanics probably didn't really know the game.

Mr. Dancey's original assertion was,

Quote from: RSDancey;420627"I wouldn't be Ryan Dancey if I didn't say something outrageous and quotable.  So I'll begin with this:

If all you did was [...] substituted Dogs in the Vineyard's rules for D&D, most D&D games would have an immediate improvement in the quality of the experience from the perspective of most of the players."

I think there is little grounds to suggest 'persecution' in refuting, or insisting on supporting information for, such a tendentious statement.

Nor in declining to agree that a certain game system is broadly superior. Or having any other preference of game.

For my part I have no real objection to people playing DitV, or a D&D/DitV hybrid.

Read it, played it, run it. I love the town creation rules and advice--that is something I use in any RPG that I run. I like the way fallout works. The conflict mechanics can be a slog, though.

The "DiTV is not a roleplaying game" is getting old and lame. In the spirit of Christmas, put it back in the rpg forum, please.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;425113So, Pundit, can the poll be made public? I think everyone's had fair warning.

It is.  Click the poll numbers.

Read my wife's copy; haven't played it.

And I'll second DKChannelBoredom.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;425144The "DiTV is not a roleplaying game" is getting old and lame. In the spirit of Christmas, put it back in the rpg forum, please.

No.

Merry Christmas. :D

Quote from: Benoist;425178No.

Merry Christmas. :D

"Y'all can kiss my mistletoe."
(http://cdn.theurbandaily.com/files/2008/12/beat-street-santas-rap-300x214.jpg) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-98JMMsgPY)

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;425153It is.  Click the poll numbers.

Ah, thanks.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;425144The "DiTV is not a roleplaying game" is getting old and lame.

Of course it's a roleplaying game. It's a crap and depressing roleplaying game, but it is nonetheless a roleplaying game.

The only time a non-rpg masqueraded as an rpg here was that We All Had Names Scandanavian fruit loop guy. That wasn't a roleplaying game because it wasn't a game. A game requires uncertainty of outcome, and there was only one end for the characters, Treblinka. You could call it improv theatre or group therapy or something, but game it wasn't.

But Dogs certainly is an rpg. Just a very crap rpg.

Haven't played it. Haven't read it. Haven't said anything good or bad about it. What I've heard from people who have played it has been pretty divided. People either seem to really like it or really hate it.

Neither read nor played. The setting is definitely not my cup of tea, and what I understand of the mechanics isn't either. So no interest in the game whatsoever.

I have both read and played it on multiple occasions.

It's actually not a favorite of mine, which always makes me feel like I've missed something about it, given the high esteem in which it is held by so many. And I say this as someone who loves Vincent Baker's games ('In A Wicked Age' and 'Storming the Wizard's Tower' in particular).

I do think that, as a written text, 'Dogs in the Vineyard' is one of the best RPGs ever made. Just reading it changed the way I thought about role-playing games.

Also in the spirit of Christmas, if there is any interest, I will schedule and run a DitV game for any and all RPGsite members in the greater Washington area.

Played it multiple times years back, know the rules sufficiently.

I've flipped through the rules and played a very well run game of it.

I think it is ass to not have it in the RPG section of this site, whether some people like to refer to it as a "story game" or not. It is an RPG.

And for the record, the angst about the whole Mormon thing is laughable. The game has about as much to do with real LDS people as Deadlands has to do with the historical American west.

I read it...thought it was okay. Had ZERO interest from my players.

I've read it and played it. It's a great game, and extremely well-written. I found the advice on how to run the game is applicable to just about every other RPG I've run since. For the record, it's an RPG, pure and simple. It reminded me of OD&D more than anything else.

Quote from: Spinachcat;425025Mormons creep me out

My wife was a Mormon. She's got over it.

I read DiTV. I actually thought the setting was ok but the rules do nothing for me.

Quote from: Simon W;427065

Quote from: Spinachcat;425025Mormons creep me out

My wife was a Mormon. She's got over it.

Sandy Peterson, creator of Call of Cthulhu, apparently also is Mormon. Seems like a nice enough guy. What's with the Mormon-o-phobia? :D

Quote from: Simon W;427065I read DiTV. I actually thought the setting was ok but the rules do nothing for me.

I read about DiTV and decided it was not for me, let alone my players. Both subject matter and system hold no appeal for me.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;425144The "DiTV is not a roleplaying game" is getting old and lame. In the spirit of Christmas, put it back in the rpg forum, please.

Agree.

I have no opinion on the game, but this is just baby-spits-dummy petulance. Of course it's an rpg and as such should be discussed in the rpg forum.

I'd never even heard of it until I came here but going on the fact so many people hate it it must be great :)

Having read a couple of reviews, it does seem like a dice mechanic perhaps more than anythign else. How does combat work given that engaging parties can take narrative control? How are non-opposed actions resolved?

Hey Ghost Whistler,

There are no unopposed actions in Dogs in the Vineyard. A character's action is either interesting enough to make into a conflict or it simply succeeds, at the discretion of the GM. If the GM initiates an action, which is fairly rare, it's always a conflict. In a conflict the GM opposes the player, and others can join in on either side if that makes sense.

Regarding narrative control, you can definitely make the stakes in a conflict something bigger than your dude. "The stakes are, does he change your mind", for example. How far this goes, and how far you stray from character monogamy, is largely a matter of an individual group's preference. Setting good stakes is really key, by whatever "good" means to you and your friends.

I just learned a new acronym: STFI. It means "search the f*ing Internet".

Okay, I've got a few minutes. Everything is resolved the same way. To begin with, there's no such thing as a non-opposed action. Even if there are rules for "personalizing" inanimate objects (like a mountain you want to climb), then in play, they never come up. Basically, it's all interpersonal conflict.

Without going into detail that's irrelevant to your question, the way it works is, first you have a conflict. Like "Joe Bob wants to burn down the mayor's house, and Steve wants to stop him." Then on your "turn", you roll a bunch of dice for your relevant abilities (based on the type of action you're taking, classified into "just talking", physical but not fighting, fighting hand-hand, and gunfighting) and descriptive traits (whatever's immediately relevant to what you're doing). Then you take two of them out of your pool (called a "raise") and describe what you're doing. Really, it's what you're threatening to do, or if you're "just talking", it's what you're claiming to be true, "or else".

Everyone who's directly affected then has to take 1-3 dice out of their pool whose value is >= what you pushed. If they can't or won't do this, then "or else" happens--meaning, you achieve your overall goal in the conflict. If you're Joe Bob, then the mayor's house goes up in flames.

In order to match a raise without suffering any consequences, you need do it with just two dice. (This is called a "block".) If you do it with three dice, you "take the blow", meaning that the action affects you. Steve calls you the son of a whore, you "take the blow", then you are the son of a whore. (Or at least, you're deeply affected instead of you just shrugging off the insult.) He shoots you, you're hit. If you don't match a raise, then you don't take the consequences, but as just noted, the "or else" happens unless someone on the other side of the conflict stops the raise. [EDIT: this isn't quite right. If you don't match the raise, you're out of the conflict, and when everyone on one side drops out, the other side wins.] More about "taking the blow" in a second.

(Matching a raise with just 1 die gives you a little tactical benefit but aside from not remembering it, I don't think it's really relevant to your question.)

Any time you're making a raise or responding to one, you can add more dice to your pool by including new traits that are relevant to your described action. Like if you start by talking and then decide to hit Steve with your heavy walking stick, you throw in the dice for the walking stick. You'll also be throwing in extra dice because fighting, in and of itself, adds some dice that you don't get by just talking. But basically all the dice you get, you get just once. If you keep walloping Steve with the stick, you're not going to get any more dice, because you've already gotten them for the stick and for fighting.

So: you keep doing this until everybody on one side "gives", that is, fails to match a "raise". They lose the conflict, so the other side gets to have whatever was their goal going into the conflict.

Note that getting hit, shot, insulted, or whatever has no direct consequence during the conflict. If you "give", it basically doesn't happen. If you "block" or "take the blow", the only immediate consequence is that you've used up some dice in your pool. But after the conflict, the "blows" that you "take" do affect you, causing "fallout". The bigger the dice, the more severe the fallout, although there are limiting factors--you can die from "taking the blow" when someone shoots at you, but not when someone makes a theological argument at you, even if their argument is 2d10 totaling 20 points.

So as you can see, physical combat is very straightforward. You can narrate any kind of mayhem, whether bashing each other or shooting, and the strength of your attack is the dice you push forward. If you were being silly you could take 2d10 out of your pool, totaling 18, even if those dice initially came from gesturing while holding up a big, fancy copy of the holy book, and push them forward with "I poke him in the adam's apple with my pinkie finger". If it doesn't win the fight outright, it'll still be hard to stop without "taking the blow"--you may cause serious damage. This does seem silly, but it doesn't break the narrative flow or logic (if you will).

The place the game runs into trouble, in my experience, is that "talking" isn't really the same as "fighting" in real life, and the game fails to reflect that. If I've got massive dice on my side, I can make a completely nonsensical argument, and you won't be able to stop me. Conversely, if I've got massive dice, and I start with a good argument that you block, I may well run out of things to say before we finish going back & forth with the dice.

Now, the game basically says: if the PCs do something that just "makes sense" they should win; the GM should "give" even if he's got dice to oppose them. And similarly, there's advice to limit the "raises" according to the sensibilities of the group. But you see what's going on here: the hype around the game and the "scene" that it comes out of is that there's no need for "rule zero". Whereas in fact, when you aren't taking the direct approach of hitting or shooting someone, "rule zero" has to be invoked repeatedly. Even if it's the player/GM invoking it on themselves, when they're trying to figure out if X raise is "legit", or whether they "should" give even though they've got the dice to pigheadedly stay in the conflict.

So 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'?

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'?

My understanding of it would be yes, you succeed. (As an aside, this would probably be the same thing as GM that I would say in Call of Cthulhu or D&D or whatever unless for some reason the materials to do the sealing were a problem to get hold of.)

I suppose a conflict might erupt if, let's say, someone then said it was wrong to seal the church doors because it needs to be open to the faithful no matter what. Then that conflict would need to be resolved. But again this is just from reading the rules not actual play.

I don't know if i'm cool with that level of handwavium.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;427301I don't know if i'm cool with that level of handwavium.

Why does there need to be a roll in that situation? As in, you feel the game ought to require a carpentry roll or something like that to do it successfully? Or do I misunderstand what you're saying is hand waved that ought not be?

You 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. More likely you'd have something like: the vampires are coming to town to take Lucy, who's the reincarnated wife of the king of the vampires. The vampires would start by riding into town and surrounding Lucy. That might be a physical action so they'll push a couple dice; the players then block it (which means it doesn't happen), by pushing dice and saying "before they get there, we take Lucy to the church and seal up all the entrances". The the players might narrate shooting bullets out of the church, that have marked with the sign of the cross or something. But as long as the vampires still have dice, they can keep pushing them and narrating ways that they break through the barricades, or hypnotize Lucy, or whatever.

It 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.

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.